Comments by "AWResistance" (@AlanWattResistance) on "Bite-sized Philosophy"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
+jelkel25, You can deviate as much as you like within a relationship (behind closed doors), just don't bring your deviations into the public sphere. I'm not saying what you can and can't do in private, i'm merely stating what is and is not intended by nature, and how it should or should not be incorporated into society.
"a biological response to overpopulation" And how would that work exactly? Are you saying that nature is opposed to large groups of people? The opposite seems to be true, that nature rather likes large groups of people, afterall, almost everyone has desire for sex, even homosexuals, they're just not using their sexual tools properly because their mind is working contray to the body. Even homosexuals produce semen, so nature seems to have wanted them to procreate. And women can have many more children beyond what is currently deemed acceptable. But if you are right, then nature must be telling homosexuals not have children, which actually supports my argument, so i'm right either way.
Also, how would nature determine whether our world is overpopulated? Is homosexuality the result of large cities and big populations? If so, then we wouldn't expect to find any evidence of homosexuality in the ancient world, where there we're fewer big cities and lower population levels, and yet we do. And there have always been a number of people in society who have forgone having children, for example the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of monks in the past few thousand years, which would certainly negate the need for homosexuals to decrease the population.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1