Nestle Baby Formula Scandal. Heavy metals in Baby food.

[AtheisticNonduality]

@Leo Gura Well, the main problem is that you're comparing something like gay or trans sexuality to cancer, which isn't really a fair comparison.

With the maladaptivity thing, who's to say that humans are meant to be stuck with the nuclear family until the end of time? I don't think the human body or the human mind or human social structure became "complete" as soon as standard male-female marriage dynamics were invented.

And with depopulation, sure that could be a problem, but separating sex from reproduction seems like a certainty. People want sex, not reproduction. So sex is going to get more and more reproduction-less, as that becomes viable for civilization.

Edited January 18, 2023 by AtheisticNonduality

[Lyubov]

So the argument is toxins / metals / pesticides => a contributing factor to fueling degeneracy, potentially harmful sexual beliefs in society and weak social structures.

I can kinda see it. I think this would have more to do with stuff like ADHD, learning disabilities, autism and these sorts of stuff but could also affect choices these people make with their sexuality and following a fad.

I think the lgbtq culture we see now is partially a fad and will become less prominent and more just a causal fixture in western society going forward. We may even see the gen z generation looked back on as the gay generation. Just hope kids aren’t indoctrinated so much, transitioning in youth seems like it could be a big issue down the line.

Edited January 18, 2023 by Lyubov

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

@Leo Gura Well, the main problem is that you're comparing something like gay or trans sexuality to cancer, which isn't really a fair comparison.

It's being compared strictly at the level of chemistry and maladaptiveness.

But more than that, cancer is fighting with yourself. And that's basically what trans is. Trans people are not happy people. They are lost in a private mental ego hell of confusion.

Quote

With the maladaptivity thing, who's to say that humans are meant to be stuck with the nuclear family until the end of time? I don't think the human body or the human mind or human social structure became "complete" as soon as standard male-female marriage dynamics were invented.

This isn't about the invention of marriage. Men and women have been fucking since before the baboon days.

You screw with the male/female bond at your own peril.

Edited January 18, 2023 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That's the point. You will never find such a line.

But it should be possible to somewhat prove it, doesn't it? If there is a hypothesis that this x chemical or this x set of chemicals are changing people's sexual orientations, then after collecting a lot of data from everywhere for a long period of time, it should show at least some change. Of course that still wouldn't show the exact line or prove without a doubt the hypothesis, but at least we would have something to build from.

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

So if 50% of the population turned gay, yes, that would be very "bad".

Not necessarily, especially not in modern times. Being attracted to the opposite sex is not a necessary requirement to be able to have children. Also being gay doesn't automatically mean not wanting to have children, so gay guys could still send their sperm to clinics or could give their sperm to girls ,who are willing to give birth to their children.

Also depending on how fast the technology evolves, eventually we can have artificial wombs as well, so the possibilities are almost endless.

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, zurew said:

But it should be possible to somewhat prove it, doesn't it?

Of course. Take a feutus and inject it full of chemical. It will come out all screwed up.

Quote

Not necessarily, especially not in modern times. Being attracted to the opposite sex is not a necessary requirement to be able to have children. Also being gay doesn't automatically mean not wanting to have children, so gay guys could still send their sperm to clinics or could give their sperm to girls ,who are willing to give birth to their children.

Also depending on how fast the technology evolves, eventually we can have artificial wombs as well, so the possibilities are almost endless.

You are talking about science fiction when the world runs on basic, free fucking. No one can afford this sci-fi crap you talk about.

Edited January 18, 2023 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course. Take a feutus and inject it full of chemical. It will come out all screwed up.

No, you could do it in a reasonable way. You have a hypothesis that this x chemical can change the child's sexual orientation and you measure that chemical in the mother's body in one way or the other, then you compare the results between millions and tens of millions of findings and see the results.

So you don't have to inject anything there, but if you would have really wanted to inject chemicals in a human body, you would first have to establish that it is safe and you can do the establishment of that by finding mothers who have relatively high level or low level of that chemical (naturally) and monitor them and see if that particular chemical being high or low level in the mother's body would cause any health problem for the mother or for the child. Once it is established that it is safe, you can start to test your hypothesis.

None of these things are impossible to do or to achieve, if we really value the validation of this hypothesis and there is no need to do it in an immoral way.

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You are talking about science fiction when the world runs on basic, free fucking. No one can afford this sci-fi crap you talk about.

The government already incentivises people in many countries to have children by a variety means and factors do you think in this case it would suddenly be different? The cost of sperm donors would be much much cheaper because a lot more people would be willing to give their sperms, because there would be a lot bigger market for it , a lot more clinics would open up and there would also be a possible competition between the clinics (who can provide more and faster and better quality sperm samples.) 

If a couple can't afford to buy sperm from a clinic, then that couple shouldn't have children, because they won't be able to reasonably afford to raise up that children, and again if you really want to help them , the government could still be there to help really poor people by buying sperm from clinics or by buying them a surrogate mother.

Also almost all orpahange would become empty suddenly. - and that would be a big positive to all this.

 

Also, it seems that you have the assumption of "You can only change a person's sexual orientation with chemicals in their mother's womb , when they are developing" , but we have no reason to assume that, unless you have some theory for that too.

But its not even worth to entertain the point of "what if 50% of the global population will turn gay", because its irrealistic, given that your hypothesis is true, we would be able to directly change the sexual orientation of unborn people and prevent this from happening, if we would see it as a big threat or a problem.

Edited January 18, 2023 by zurew

[Lyubov]

A larger gay male population would be similar to the problem when a country goes to war and loses half it’s men. Creates issues with repopulation. Wouldn’t be as bad with all the unresolved trauma and violence though. 

[AtheisticNonduality]

@Leo Gura Your argument is paranoia about depopulation of first-world countries, and trans people having ego / identity problems, and homosexuality not being natural? Pretty weak argument, my friend.

[Osaid]

 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

homosexuality not being natural?

Cancer is natural. But an epidemic of cancer is manmade.

All I'm saying is chemicals create imbalances which are then maladaptive and cause needless suffering.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, zurew said:

No, you could do it in a reasonable way. You have a hypothesis that this x chemical can change the child's sexual orientation and you measure that chemical in the mother's body in one way or the other, then you compare the results between millions and tens of millions of findings and see the results.

You can do tests on animals in the lab. Like those frogs.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Leo Gura

[AtheisticNonduality]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Cancer is natural. But an epidemic of cancer is manmade.

All I'm saying is chemicals create imbalances which are then maladaptive and cause needless suffering.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality in a society are just an asymmetry that needs to be balanced.

[AtheisticNonduality]

Okay, I think my my main problem with your thinking here is that you give too much credence to conservative tendencies and human biology like male-female, when human beings ultimately are destined for radical change, mentally, physically, emotionally, BIOLOGICALLY overall.

So society will have to accommodate that change, not the other way around.

Ask if being biased against homo-trans-whatever societies is based out of fear or Love.

What if it was more in alignment with Love to destroy what you're trying to preserve?

[Leo Gura]

25 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Okay, I think my my main problem with your thinking here is that you give too much credence to conservative tendencies and human biology like male-female, when human beings ultimately are destined for radical change, mentally, physically, emotionally, BIOLOGICALLY overall.

You ain't changing the male-female dynamic any time soon. It's not as flexible as you think. And you create needless suffering by doing that.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Leo Gura

[AtheisticNonduality]

But Leo, what about trans-women that look and act completely identical to biological women, except for the sex organs??

Edited January 19, 2023 by AtheisticNonduality

[Leo Gura]

30 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

But Leo, what about trans-women that look and act completely identical to biological women, except for the sex organs??

And what about snakes born with 2 heads?

[AtheisticNonduality]

I could get you more cool pictures from the internet iyw