On 08/07/17 12:11, Philip Draper wrote:
> In message 
>            The Natural Philosopher  wrote:
>
>> On 07/07/17 21:01, Philip Draper wrote:
>>> In message 
>>>             The Natural Philosopher  wrote:
>
>>>> 2/. Darwin only demands that you are not so completely deluded as to
>>>> fail to copulate with a member of the opposite sex productively before
>>>> you die.
>
>>> I do wonder where that 'quotation' from Darwin appears. It doesn't
>>> seem very Darwinian language. Maybe its actually a quottion from one
>>> of the numerous people who interpreted what Darwin said in terms of
>>> their own views.
>>>
>> It is simply deducible from Darwins principle of natural selection.
>
>> It isnt a quote from anybody, it is the logical consequence of a process
>> that elminates those who fail to breed successfully..
>
>> I do so love this modern idea that anything yoiu disagree with, no
>> matter how logical, and deduction is pure logic, can be dismissed as
>> 'mere opinion'
>
>> Induction may be subject to such a challenge, but not deduction.
>
>> This bandar log response to science mathematics and politics is doomed
>> to ultimate failure.
>
>> Pythagoras is notr a 'matter of opinion': given te axioms of euclidian
>> plane gemotery, Pythaogras theorem is an implicit. The deductive 'proof'
>> is merely a step by step explication.
>
>> For the mentally challemged, consider a gene pool that is 100%
>> homosexual without exception. Where does the next generation come from?
>
>> The fact that homosexuality is and always has been common, shows that
>> plenty of homosexuals must have actually been bisexual. Assuming it is a
>> genetic predilection.
>
>> Of course if its simply a fashion, and has no basis in genetics, thats
>> another matter.
>
> Well, maybe. But Darwin was much influenced by Malthus, who was quite
> clear that too many people -> disaster.
>
> Anyway, evolution doesn't eliminate those who fail to breed, only
> eliminates their contribution to the gene pool. And where is the
> evidence that homosexuals cannot have children?

Ypu are extraordinary.

By definition IF homsexuality means exclusive sex only with a partner of
the same sex then bt definition homosexuals cannot have children.

The correct term you are after is 'bi sexual'

>
> Logic is all very well (though I wonder how it applies to quantum
> mechanics), but if it based on false facts it tends to fail.
>

Good grief.

What could you possibly know about logic?


--
There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05