Sup Forums BTFO on homosexuality by a Liberal Professor

>"Let's take the example of 'raw versus cooked' to explain how heterosexuality and homosexuality are mutually intertwined. I tried to show that obviously intuitively the raw precedes the cooked, and yet at the same time, if we understand the relationship between the raw and the cooked to be a discursive formation, we have to recognise that there would be no such thing as the raw if there weren't the cooked. If you talk about eating a raw carrot, you have to have had a cooked carrot. You don't just pick up a carrot which you've never seen before and say "this is a raw carrot"; the only way you know it's raw is to know that it can be and has been cooked.

>Well, it's the same with homosexuality and heterosexuality; what do you mean "the heterosexual precedes the homosexual"? What do you mean the heterosexual is the original and the homosexual is a copy? Who would ever think of the concept of 'heterosexual'? I mean, you're the only person on Earth and you stand there and say "I'm heterosexual"? You don't do that."-Professor Paul Fry.

How can Sup Forums claim homosexuality is unnatural when you cannot claim to be heterosexual without a point of reference?

youtu.be/7bkFlJfxyF0

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=sTy3mJZXf_0
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Schizophrenia

>What the person wanted to say :
"HOMOSEXUALITY = HETEROSEXUALITY DEAL WITH IT"
>What it actually said :
"homosexuality exists because heterosexuality exists."

But it's true. How can you say homosexuality is not natural?

So what you're telling me is that being gay is a choice

gay

This guy won the Olympic gold medal in mental gymnastics

No animal ever cooked a steak. The only creature to ever do that is man.

>I mean, you're the only person on Earth and you stand there and say "I'm heterosexual"? You don't do that.

is this suposed to be an argument?

>start off as cells
>then plakton
>then fishies
>then crocodile things
>then crocodile things with legs
>then lizards
>then hairy lizards
>then lizards that are hairy
>then upright hairy things
>millions of years later you can speak
>reproduce through vaginal sex
>some faggot says "WHY R U LIKE DIS"

Homosexuality is not unnatural. Sucking dicks and butt-fucking are.

Just because I think having one head is natural, doesn't mean I'm necessarily contrasting it with having two heads.
It's just the default state of affairs.

Careful, you dont wanna get the christfags upset.

The whole lecture is a lot like Jewish physics: a bunch of abstract concepts doing this or that to other abstract concepts.

>Everything goes normal (is raw)
>Something deviates (gets cooked)
>Now we have a point of reference for what is normal
We never call normal things "normal" until something deviates from normal.
We never talk about how good we are at breathing until there was something wrong with it at one point in our life.
Same with homosexuality, we wouldn't be saying heterosexuality is normal unless homosexuality exists because everyone would be hetero.

Homosexuality originates because of toxoplasma gondii. Research it you fucking Sup Forums plebs.

You are assuming homo precedes Hetero without any logical reasoning. Homo also serves no biological purpose other than feeling good.

Homosexuals confirmed carrots

>I tried to show that obviously intuitively the raw precedes the cooked
So raw carrots are natural then. The argument is fucking stupid in the first place and your conclusion Paddy is even more fucking retarded.

Fuck off.

So you're okay with never getting a BJ ever again?

This is absolutely unfounded.
I can look at a vegetable I've never seen before and easily tell whether it is raw or cooked.

Romans 1 puts this argument straight into a garbage can. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

So therefore how can you say that heterosexuality is the 'default' state when both are mutually dependent?

Says who?

This look like one of Sup Forums food analogies.

true there would not be a need for a label to describe the states "raw" or "heterosexual" if there was no alternative, but that does not change the fact that of what the state of affairs would be.

even if no word had been invented for "raw" or "heterosexual", the carrot would still have never been exposed to great heat and still the humans would be attracted to people of the of the other sex.

e.g. diamond is always hard, so no one has invented a term meaning "hard-diamond" as opposed to "soft-diamond" but still the natural state of the diamond is clearly hard.
the lack of a label for something does not change its nature.

The point of reference is "me want penis in vagina and get baby". That is reprodution and it is the core feature of all biological organisms. To use your reproductive means in a way that does not reproduce, and especially to devote your life to it, is what we call a 'perversion'.

They arent mutually dependent. Heterosexuality can exist without Homosexuality and vice versa. The fact that we wouldnt name it doesnt mean we _require_ the other one.

How so?

If heterosexuals didnt come first, or at least were not the vast majority of the firdt comers the species would continue.

>this particular meat can generate more meat down the line
>this other type of meat gives me aids and depression
>let's compare meat, but let's talk about carrots
That professor is pretty fucking dopey

underrated post

LBGT BTFO

I mean he is right though. I don' go out and say, "I'm heterosexual, deal with it world!". I'm just normal. All he did here, if he was trying to make homosexuality seem normal, is actually just further highlight its otherness.

Can you have children the natural way through homosexuality? No? It's not natural then, Mario.

Because 'heterosexuality' is a Jewish meme word.
You are either normal. Or some kind of sick pervert. THE END.

Yes, but homosexuality isn't some invention of modern society. Homosexuality has always existed in societies and civilisations.

False Equivalence. Sexual reproduction and propagation is practiced by all animals and most plants. Only man deliberately cooks animals and plants for consumption. One act is instinctual, the other, learned.

I don't give a fuck about other people's sexual taste and perversions. Just not try please to spread your degenarancy to other people, especially those easily influnceable like children. Because it's like wanting to teach a 3yr old how to cook carrots, he will not comprehen the professionale very well and in the end will get some third degree burns because he fucked up

Also psyops thread. Carrot=dick. Your kike magic wont work on me, jew.

SAGE

How would being homosexual be beneficial in an evolutionary context? I can only think of negatives. It would be very unlikely that you spread your genes on if youre gay. So it seems being gay is unnatural.

Wouldn't

heterosexuality -> no reproduction
homosexuality > reproduction

Do you believe that no reproduction is the default state in the evolutionary process?

I will simplify this question for you. user, are you a retard?

Yes, but he's not speaking of reproduction of 'normality'; he's speaking of people who say "being a heterosexual is natural and being a homosexual is unnatural", but this is wrong because one cannot have preceded the other.

>human being
>faggot

Pick one.

You are a birth defect and a reproductive dead end.

"Homophobe"? No one is afraid of you, we are disgusted by you.

You are similar to dog shit on the bottom of a shoe. No one is afraid of that, but they are naturally disgusted by it.

And the reason why your suicide rate is so high? Because deep down inside, you know there is something wrong with you.

>literally a shadow can't exist without the light argument

To reduce overpopulation

Anons, it's NOT about reproduction; it's about the assertion that heterosexuality is the 'natural' state of affairs when we know that both have to exist simultaneously. One did not precede the other in order for the term 'heterosexuality' to exist. It's more about linguistics than it is biology.

I wish you people would look up the definition of "Natural". I honestly couldn't give a fuck if you agree with homosexuality or not but calling it unnatural is just incorrect.

He's saying no one started out saying "this is a raw carrot", which is true, because being raw is the natural state of a carrot. Only once someone cooked a carrot did a qualifier for the normal state become necessary.

I'm not really sure how his analogy makes it sound like fags are natural, because to me it would seem like the opposite is the case.

Yes. One did proceed another. You know homosexuality didn't come first because HUMANITY STILL EXISTS

Lol thats retarded.

>it increases my chances of spreading my genes on (beneficial) if im homosexual because i wont reproduce

...

whether or not that is true, it's truth is verified by virtue of empirical evidence.

not because of "hurr there's words for both homosexuality and heterosexuality so they must both be natural"

I'm objecting to his garbage argument.

But then we get to the elephant in the room, which is:
If we have two sexualities that have always existed throughout history, then who says that heterosexuality is the 'natural' one?

And before you say that heterosexuality is the only one that can lead to reproduction, homosexuality-it has been argued-is the sexuality that controls population.

Think about it. Overpopulation is an issue, so certain individuals therefore have sex with individuals of the same sex and therefore be incapable of reproduction to help reduce population rates.

Here is a evolutionary benefit.

>all females are taken
>only males left
>homosexuality as a way to group up
>find a heterosexual pair
>kill the heterosexual male
>its a fight 2 homo vs 1 hetero
>after the hetero dies, take his place
>turn hetero
>fuck the female -> reproduce
>the other homosexual stays alone
>maybe repeat the process

I didn't say homosexuality came first either. The argument is that they're mutually dependent.

No, whoever you're quoting is taking the fact that raw is processed into cooked, a process that changes the natural - Then twisting it into a linguistic definition to say that this must mean homosexuality is natural.

It's folly. A logically fallacious argument. The sexes, and the act of reproduction exist and are defined biologically and physiologically. To argue elsewise is dishonest!

Why, because it occurs in other species?
That might be the case, but in other species there's no such thing as permanent homosexuality. It doesn't become a whole lifestyle and identity in other species. That's what's unnatural about human homosexuality.

Since when does something existing make it natural?
"Nothing" exists as a concept, but it is almost non-existent in the known universe. This would make it highly unnatural, while existing as a counter-position to "Something".

Like don't get me wrong, I like boipucci as much as the next faggot, but this shit is straight up retarded. When will people stop grabbing at straws to justify their lifestyles and just point out that wether or not someone likes having a shitty dick is their own business?

(((C.G.)))

mhm

>mario
Thats Ireland goy.

>2016
>believing you need to be liberal to be gay.

most homosexual behaviour is incidental bisexual behaviour.

you make sex feel good in humans in order to get them to reproduce and as a result they also masturbate and sometimes do gay stuff to make themselves feel good.

exclusive homosexuality is bad for an individual reproducing but so are lots of things endemic populations, like downs syndrome.

natural selection doesn't necessarily optimise or weed out everything.

I'd assume more females would have died than men due to pregnancy complications and whatever else. It's amazing that regardless of culture or race, the mean homosexuality stays at ~9% of the male population

>turn hetero
>fuck the female -> reproduce
That doesnt happen kek. Unless theyre bisexual

Eating a green potato is bad for you user.

A librul professor indeed.

I don t have any problem with faggots but this is the most retarded explanation I've ever fucking heard. It makes no sense.

No. Your argument is based off of the term heterosexuality. It was just called "normal" until faggotry needed to be defined. This professor is a retard. Is he saying we don't know if the raw state or the cooked state came first? We do

youtube.com/watch?v=sTy3mJZXf_0

2% user, homosexual incidence is 2% of the population.

>food analogies
Why do americans always do this?

His argument on the subject starts at around 40:00. Listen to it yourself if you want the full picture.

Have fun dying from STDs Mario.

> Liberal Professor
Get the fuck outta here with your bullshit.

Fucking kindergarten philosophy.

"Hey, man. How did cavemen KNOW that mastodons were big and dangerous unless they hung around animals who were SMALL AND SAFE, hm? They had to, like, compare stuff to understand DIFFERENCES. Now let's roll another joint and you let me fuck you in the ass."

I disagree between our instinct going away ,and we needed our brains to have sex there would have been a lot of sex in the pooper. that sex while it is a mistake is still natural

That's some retarded mental gymnastics there.

There aren't 2 sexualities, idiot. There's normal and perverse. Lack of resources and starvation/just not having kids are methods of population control. Being a fag is a way to not have kids, but it spreads disease and drains resources for no benefit.

The overpopulation thing seems like a justification for shitty behaviour, if they really cared about overpopulation they'd commit seppuku.

Why would you mislead us by not putting what he said in the thread? Just accept the argument is stupid.
Altering raw to make it cooked, while good tasting and better health-wise, is unnatural.
Altering normality to be a fag, while worse in every conceivable way, is unnatural.
You cannot make the argument that homosexuality came first or didn't come last because it requires too many fucking assumptions. Occam's razor

>But in social terms, the idea that the heterosexual is natural and the homosexual is unnatural is belied by the fact that you cannot have one conceptually without the other.

No but lesbians are at 2%. Iirc trannies are like 0.5%

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/

> but it spreads disease

Are you seriously arguing that only homosexuals spread STDs?

>You don't just pick up a carrot which you've never seen before and say "this is a raw carrot"; the only way you know it's raw is to know that it can be and has been cooked
Raw and spoiled

Ignorance and lack of logic creates your thread.

Point of reference.
Sexual reproduction means two different types creating offspring by joining gametes.

Asexual reproduction means one creature directly creating its own offspring.

So unless faggots can split in half after a wank, they simply are corrupted anomalies and not worth anyone's concern.

Your argument is like saying "paedophile, or an adult-lover". One can't exist without the other. Which are you? Everyone is partly a paedophile, it is natural. You should be more tolerant, experiment. Two sides of the same coin.

Oh...so you can only have the idea of "eating shit" if you have the idea/concept of "avoiding eating shit"?

>about to eat my dinner at a fancy restaurant
>waiter comes over and takes a huge steaming shit on it
>tell him I don't want to eat it anymore
>"why not? it's completely natural"
>tell him I wanted my meal before he took a shit on it
>"well yes, the non-shit-covered meal preceded the shit-covered meal, but the two are mutually intertwined"
>tell him I want food that hasn't been shit on
>"how can you even want that? how can you say you had your preference for non-shit before I came over and shit on your food?"

Seek help, you poor fucking spastic

We think alike and...in context...it scares me. Wanna eat some shit?

Not an argument.

This.

No discussion is needed. Fucking mentally ill pieces of shit should be locked away or gassed, and normal society can continue in peace without these screaming lunatics GRABBING ALL THE ATTENTION.

>unable to read posts

Hence why I said that the concept something requires the concept of nothing. While something occurs naturally, a conceptual nothing appears seldomly in the natural universe.

Hence I would argue the mere existence of a counterpoint does not make that counterpoint inherently natural.

>In regard to within sex variability, Kinsey suggested that about 10% of men and 5% of women are bisexual or homosexual. More recent research suggests that 2-6% of men in the United States, France and Great Britain have had homosexual experience [14;83;131]. A 1995 study examined homosexual orientation in terms of attractions as well as behavior, and in men as well as in women, and reported that 16-21% of men and 17-19% of women in the same three countries had experienced sexual attraction to individuals of their own sex [125]. Rates for actual sexual behavior in the past 5 years were also higher than in the other recent studies. They were 6.2% for men and 3.6% for women in the United States, 10.7% for men and 3.3% for women in France, and 4.5% for men and 2.1% for women in the United Kingdom. Regardless of the precise numbers, it is clear that there is a good deal of within sex variability in sexual orientation, and that a substantial minority of both sexes have some erotic interest in individuals of their own sex.

From the study you provided. The rate in males is 2-6%, with an outlier reaching up to 11%, and females tighter at 2-3%, with no outlier. I would disregard anything Kinsley has to say on the subject out of hand given his dishonesty in proving the abundance of homosexuals. And I would need to do further reading on these other studies this article quotes.

Interesting nonetheless, thanks for sharing.

Its a natural defect like all defects. Is malware natural to your computer?

I think the argument is less about whats natural but more about whats normal. We know homosexuality exists in nature so its a natural occurance. So is cannibalism. That doesnt make either of those two things normal in human society. Now Im not comparing the too and honestly I dont really give a shit about fags. But they are a minority in society and arent a normal thing to see. So therefore they are not normal. Ive never met a fag. Ever. If I did meet one it would not be a normal day for me.

This is one big straw man that proves nothing.
>the heterosexual precedes the homosexual
>the heterosexual is the original and the homosexual is a copy
>a person who is the only man on earth says "I'm heterosexual" (how would he know that if there are no women)
Who says these things? He made up a bunch of fake points that no one made so he could hit them off the tee.

He's also a college professor. Fuck me.

Sophistry has gotten really bad lately, Aren't jews supposed to have high verbal IQs. Sage in options field

There is not a single coherent thought within that entire monologue.

Imagine hiv doesn't exist. You wouldn't stand around saying "I'm hiv negative." That wouldn't make sense. Isn't hiv great for giving you a point of reference to say I'm hiv negative? Fucking retarded argument.

If he actually gave a shit about what the only man on earth said, he would have picked up the talmud or the old testament and saw that Adam said "I'm lonely."

>but who needs to refer to the earliest human myth still recorded in western literature.

Counter example to what he is talking about, shapes.