Is it more embarrassing when RWers deny evolution or LWs deny that sex is about making babbies?

[BlueGin]

I have no problem understanding sexual relationships with animals and humans.....Now, people can have a loving relationship and never have sex..see what I mean? So you can be attracted to someone non-sexually...ok

I'm not sure how that relates to specifically sexual attraction?

Its not their poor understanding of the evolutionary cause of sexual attractedness.

Its your inability to know why youre attracted in the first place, while being sentient enough to want to fuck for said pleasure while avoiding making a baby completely

It is this nuance of thougt that escapes the retarded mind, but luckily, most people arent retards or wed be pushing for overpopulation on our rock pretty quickly Einstein.

Your argument seems to be that the biological role of sexual reproduction is not reproduction because it's fun and people can choose to use it for another purpose. Is this correct?

I think you should be embarrased because of the fact that you are too unintelligent to spell the word "babies".

You're an idiot.

A total fucking moron.

Possibly that was too obscure a reference. How Is Babby Formed Know Your Meme

Or, more likely, you're just an idiot.

Nope... Just a sock using USMB groupie lingo.

 

[Stephanie]

this op just loves to see himself type. Doesn't matter how stupid the questions or thread.

anyone know who's sock it is? they remind of someone

 

[Muhammed]

this op just loves to see himself type. Doesn't matter how stupid the questions or thread.

anyone know who's sock it is? they remind of someone

Are you my wife?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

this op just loves to see himself type. Doesn't matter how stupid the questions or thread.

anyone know who's sock it is? they remind of someone

It's weird how you go from seeing me as a fellow conservative to thinking I'm a Communist sock and back again depending on whether I'm agreeing with you in that specific case or not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Is it more embarrassing when RWers deny evolution or LWs deny that sex is about making babbies?"

As already correctly noted, this fails as a false comparison fallacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

PEDRO DE SAN PATRICIO SAID:

“Maybe I wasn't clear.”

No, it's quite clear that your reasoning is faulty.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Or how about when both deny that the human population of this planet would be billions less without vaccines? But, hey lets be against them. Dumb fucks.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Also, evolution can be debated but only in the back ground of science....Where does it fail??? If you can explain this....Well, it isn't so embarrassing. As for sex making babies....sometimes...

 

[Ravi]

The biological function of sex is reproduction, the biological function of eating is survival. I guess eating for pleasure must be against nature.

 

[rdean]

I work at a company that stretches over seas all around the world. At any one time, there are Germans, Japanese, Indians and Russians here visiting. All of them question the sanity of American right wingers. They all ask how right wingers can have so much power in this country with all the damage and failure their policies cause. I tell them I don't know what to say. America is more interested in Kim Kardashian's butt than the safety of the country.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

"Is it more embarrassing when RWers deny evolution or LWs deny that sex is about making babbies?"

As already correctly noted, this fails as a false comparison fallacy.

When the other side utterly misunderstands elementary school level biology it's to be expected. When your side does so it's actually reality that is mistaken. Point taken.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

The biological function of sex is reproduction, the biological function of eating is survival. I guess eating for pleasure must be against nature.

Maybe I'm giving the sheer amount of butthurt here too much attention. The biological function of the reproductive act is reproduction. It is true that it's also fun and can be done with no the intention of reproducing without being "against nature" or "Evil" or whatever other misinterpreted bullshit. However, that is entirely irrelevant to the reason the behavior evolved, which was to facilitate reproduction and genetic variation in offspring*. Ten year olds understand this. As copiously demonstrated here, many liberals do not. But they still feel more than entitled to be anti-science while bashing other anti-science factions for their asinine, reactionary, and counter-factual beliefs.

*This part might be hard to explain at a USMB level but it ties into that neat little natural selection thing you may have heard of.

 

[G.T.]

"Is it more embarrassing when RWers deny evolution or LWs deny that sex is about making babbies?"

As already correctly noted, this fails as a false comparison fallacy.

When the other side utterly misunderstands elementary school level biology it's to be expected. When your side does so it's actually reality that is mistaken. Point taken.

Youre the idiot who thinks THEY misunderstand biology, but its you.

Sex feels good and we are attracted to others for reproductive reasons.

But with a sentient mind, you can HAVE IT with reproduction not being its GOAL.

And thats what people mean when they say its not about making a baby when they have sex.

Youre one of the earth's most egregious morons if you cannot understand that, or a dweebish fucking troll if you can.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Is it more embarrassing when RWers deny evolution or LWs deny that sex is about making babbies?"

What's embarrassing for the OP is his failed thread premise, along with the lie that 'LWs' have ever maintained that sex doesn't concern procreation.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

"Is it more embarrassing when RWers deny evolution or LWs deny that sex is about making babbies?"

What's embarrassing for the OP is his failed thread premise, along with the lie that 'LWs' have ever maintained that sex doesn't concern procreation.

It's a lie that's been amply demonstrated for four pages.

 

[Carla_Danger]

To you as an American I mean.

Idiots talking about sex only for making "babbies" is embarrassing, or at least it should be for you.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Idiots talking about sex only for making "babbies" is embarrassing, or at least it should be for you.

Hold up. I'm currently making a thread to sit you and give you the information you should have run across back in fifth grade, or at least the first time you saw Hustler. Tbh it kind of hurts a little bit that so many adults could have such a poor grasp on their own biology. This is how we get broke single moms with no skills, twelve kids, and only a vague idea how they ended up in that mess, you know?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Idiots talking about sex only for making "babbies" is embarrassing, or at least it should be for you.

Hold up. I'm currently making a thread to sit you and give you the information you should have run across back in fifth grade, or at least the first time you saw Hustler. Tbh it kind of hurts a little bit that so many adults could have such a poor grasp on their own biology. This is how we get broke single moms with no skills, twelve kids, and only a vague idea how they ended up in that mess, you know?

First of all, you need to learn how to spell. And no, sex isn't always about making babies, some people have sex for pleasure. And I certainly don't need a lesson from you on the birds and the bees.

A vasectomy is the safest form of surgical sterilization. Women can get their tubes tied. This is a thread fail.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I'm unsure if you've read it so far. It wouldn't really be worth the effort, as it's overwhelmingly been people saying the same basic things you are: that the biological function of sex is to provide pleasure because that's what they personally use it for and reproduction has nothing to do with the process. I'm hoping that the coming thread will explain everything from why this is incorrect to why it feels good and how the pleasurable aspect relates to its biological function.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I'm unsure if you've read it so far. It wouldn't really be worth the effort, as it's overwhelmingly been people saying the same basic things you are: that the biological function of sex is to provide pleasure because that's what they personally use it for and reproduction has nothing to do with the process. I'm hoping that the coming thread will explain everything from why this is incorrect to why it feels good and how the pleasurable aspect relates to its biological function.

No one is saying that reproduction has nothing to do with the process, only you, Goober. No one on this forum (I hope) needs to be told how babies are made.