>being gay is normal because animals do it too!
>rape is also present in animal kingdom (dolphins for example) and so is killing another male's offspring
>this suddenly doesn't count as natural anymore
>mfw
is appeal to nature the most retarded rhetorical tactic in history?
Other urls found in this thread:
thenewatlantis.com
twitter.com
naturalistic fallacy, a formal logical fallacy recognized in the western world for millenia as stupid
you only become gay by worshiping nature
West wouldn't be so degenerate if it accepted rape and the killings of weak sons to be honest.
zostaw czarka rozbójniku
btw my girflend just say today that she is a feminist, but not like a nazi-femi, but just a normal girl with can live without man.
>mfw when she say it to me
It's bad guys ?
This Incest and pædophilia is perfectly natural as well. Doesn't make it right.
ANd animals never gay marry each other. So does that mean gay marriage is unnatural?
I think it's the equivalent of "Yeah I mean I like girls but I don't need to be with one to be happy"
Fuck I am such puss I should say exactly something like that.
This is how it starts. Either media or some retarded cunts made her believe this. She will be baited into hating men soon. Abandon the shit.
The only reason why people point to homosexuality in the animal kingdom is because there was a huge fallacy floating around for years that animals aren't gay so why should humans be.
Astoundingly, people still bring it up, as Manny Pacquiao did famously just this past year (pic related).
Otherwise, you'd probably never hear LGBT proponents even mentioning the animal kingdom.
>Naturalistic Fallacy when you say rape is natural in the animal kingdom
>Legitimate argument when you say that there are faggot animals to justify human faggots.
Intervene NOW.
She's not too far gone to pull out of the fire. Start SLOW.
Start with benign examples of feminist insanity and work your way up from there.
You can beat this.
If it fails though, you need to leave ASAP
U gon get cucked son.
I think evidence of homosexual behaviour in animals is used to refute the claim that human homosexuality is "unnatural."
I don't think it's used to suggest that it's "good" or "not wrong," only to suggest that it is a naturally occurring phenomenon that is not unique to humans. Same with sexual violence.
You need a completely different set of ideas to argue about whether homosexuality and rape are wrong or not.
Rape and killing another male's offspring harm other people. Being gay doesn't.
Genes. Clean toilet. Who socialises animals?
/thread
The appeal to nature rhetoric isnt "retarded"
It's just the people using it in their arguments dont understand the universal application of it. They just use it when it fits them. I have never heard someone say rape isnt natural though.
Yes, rape is natural. But, it is immoral. The people you are speaking to do not think being a fag is immoral. That is why they don't equate the two things.
You can thank the jews for this.
Fpbp
I'm gay and you make a lot of sense. Want to exchange emails?
yup, liberals usually choose what fits there narratives and ignores the rest
Sure send me some dick pics.
I truly believe that the only way a man could date a single mother is if he was allowed to kill the previous children. Stop perpetuating another mans genetics. Its fucking pathetic.
Abandon ship m8
Is being gay immoral?
I definitely think you could argue it is. If only for the fact that it definitely is a slipper slope into child diddling. But, I am a retard and don't care enough to form an argument.
gay rights aside, is there a single thread on Sup Forums without someone committing at least one of the fallacies or breaking one of the rules in the sticky?
>2 gays kissing each other
consensual
>rape
not consensual
>pedophilia
not able to be "consensual" because kids are not fully aware of their actions
>killing other kids
not legal, has nothing to do with being gay or not
Inter-species sex is also present in the animal kingdom so bestiality is normal.
I see them broken constantly and if you call them out they'll wrongly call you out for a fallacy fallacy or just pretend like the fallacy you called them out on is wrong.
It's hopeless.
Animals engage in non-consensual sex, so it's normal.
If there were no fallacies on Sup Forums it would be the most boring place on the internet
You have two choices
Either abandon the ship
Or man up and show that whore where she belongs
It is indeed normal, In nature.
How ever we as a civilization have laws, Laws against hurting others.We have those because if not everything would be turned into shit, We would still survive as a species, but everything would be 100% more shit.
We can recognize that homosexuality is inferior because we know that heterosexuality is the cause of all human life.
it's clearly a mental illness, since the main goal of life is to continue the survival of your species, And homosexuality makes that impossible.
How ever we continue to fuck around with nature, by making intercourse obsolete for making life (you can TODAY, design your own baby to some degree, and earlier this year scientists made a embryo survive 13 days outside a womb, Maybe sounds like a shitty feat but it usually survives 5 days until it has to be inserted into a biological womb)
What does consent have to do with anything?
Has everyone forgotten that case of consensual murder/cannibalism?
Just because someone says something is okay doesn't make it okay by default.
You'll never see an argument without some kind of generalization or fallacy
Anal sex hurts.
BDSM enthusiasts also volunteer for pain for sex purposes.
The guy who ate that other guy had his consent, and was still arrested.
What does consent have to do with anything.
Either it should, across the board, be legal, or it should all be illegal.
You can't just pick and choose.
the fact that homosexuality is still present after 200,000 years of human evolution means that it has a biological purpose
nature's birth control
fertile males without kids = more able workforce for the tribe without the burden of mouths to feed---yet being able to procreate with a woman if need be (if a gay man shoots inside a woman she will still become pregnant)
DROP
It's against the "gay is an aberration against nature" line that religious groups typically use. In that context, I would not call it a naturalistic fallacy so much as argument by counterexample.
Yes, the I-gave-birth-therefore-I-am types of women are obviously correct, no matter what they give birth to.
Recent research from John Hopkins says that only a predisposition to homosexuality is genetic. No one is born gay.
thenewatlantis.com
Amusingly enough, homophobia appears to have a stronger genetic heritability
That's John Hopkins. 147 pages from a handful of some of the most educated geneticists and medical/psychological professionals...
But you're right. I'm just a homophobe.
certain ancient cultures have cultural practice of men fucking and only have sex with women for the sole purpose of procreation
i guess no one is born straight either
I never said they were.
"Culture"
Exactly.
Read the god damn paper.
I'm not calling you a homophobe, fuckwit. I'm just noting, in a similar vein, how amusing it is that homophobia appears to have a stronger genetic correlation than homosexuality itself.
Learn some reading comprehension or get blown, leaf.
so you have some latent gay in you as well?
It's pretty retarded, but it's mostly conservatives who use it.
As in, "homosexuality is unnatural".
If someone for gay rights ever brings up that homosexuality happens in nature, it's almost certainly in response to an anti-homosexual who has made this argument.
That response is made in response to someone saying homosexuality is unnatural. Learn 2 context dumb.
Yes, but it's not done for the sake of the person himself, it's done with pressure from others. It's not an adaptation that favors the person falling into it. It's a side-effect of something else.
This is an argument designed to scare people away from saying it's not innate. It's not a rational argument, just an effective one given that people are generally cowards.
Homosexuality can be said to be unnatural even if many animals do it.
So essentially anything that many animals do could be said to be unnatural?
Yes, because just about anything you might say is unnatural is something some animal somewhere could do.
Actually ,it is natural because it is genetic.
Believing it's coded genetically rather than merely not-entirely-prevented, is retarded. Natural selection is only about living long enough to REPRODUCE.