File spoon-archives/nietzsche.archive/nietzsche_1998/nietzsche.9802, message 5


From: "John T. Duryea" <jtduryea-AT-dmv.com>
Subject: Re: Nietzsche on Mill and Darwin
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 19:02:56 -0600




>More utter drivel from John:
>
>>No idea, huh? I've got a radical one, put into actual practice
>>the notion "the more mistrust, the more philosophy"! Is that
>>awesome, or what?
>
>First you would have to understand what it means, John. Quite a challenge
>for you, since you are obviously entirely lacking in both.
>
Certainly Nietzsche's point about there being nothing more
stupid than the newspaper reading denizens of the
megalopolis has bearing here. Or as Spengler puts it,
"intelligence is the weed that grows in the cracks of
big city pavements". Here in the "land of pleasant living"
on the Eastern Shore we've got another good saying:

Dumber than a shucked oyster!

It is only in the "late" decadent phase of a culture that
homosexuality begins to assume a patina of
semi-respectability. Prior to that, it has been the
collective wisdom of society to abhor this type of
behavior as evinced by the legal system as well
as religious teachings. Now, why is that society
has deemed this necessary? You have not a
scintilla of actual fact to back up your imaginings
that homosexuality provides a survival advantage
to society. A rationalist can rationalise anything is
all you've proven.


>>Maybe gays whining about "my genes make me do it" is
>>just the typical whining of another special intrest group
>>who wants to portray themselves as "genetic victims" in order
>>to get "protected status" from the EEOC so they
>>can whine all the more about their "rights" (without a word
>>about duty and responsibility).
>
>Okay, John, you seem fixated on the notion that lesbianism _must_ be
>non-genetic, the better to be able to lambast them for poor life-style
>choices, I presume. I am far from maintaining that lesbianism is genetic
(as
>I said, I have no idea whether lesbianism is or is not genetic), but your
>reasoning (what little of such you have chosen to provide) seems to me to
be
>entirely deficient.
>
>Your arguments entirely ignore the following factors:
>
>1) My original point about heterosexual siblings being genetically
>advantaged by homosexual siblings during periods of declining resources
>(fewer mouths, more hands, in other words).
>
>2) I'm not aware that it has been conclusively established that homosexuals
>actually have historically had a lower rate of reproduction than
>heterosexuals. Certainly during periods during which homosexuals have been
>in the closet, it would seem to follow that homosexuals would enter
marriage
>and procreate at a rate quite similar to heterosexuals. So even if
>homosexuals who are out of the closet tend to avoid marriage and
procreation
>at a higher rate than when they were in the closet, that would seem to be
>more the exception than the rule. Note, that even if a constant lower rate
>of reproduction could be demonstrated for homosexuals (both when in and out
>of the closet), that would not exclude the possibility of point one above
>forming a compensatory factor.
>
>3) Your argument also ignores the possibility of a recessive gene for
>homosexuality. It takes two recessive genes for their corresponding trait
to
>show up. As long as one has a dominant gene for heterosexuality and a
>recessive gene for homosexuality, then one would be a heterosexual. But
>marry someone else who also has a recessive gene for homosexuality and you
>will have a 25% chance of having a homosexual child (a child with both
>recessive genes). Look at it this way (where T = dominant heterosexual
gene,
>m = recessive homosexual gene, (1) = first parent, and (2) = second
parent):
>
>T(1)m(1) + T(2)m(2) >
>T(1)T(2), T(1)m(2), m(1)T(2), m(1)m(2).
>
>Note, however, that if one of the parents has both recessive genes (is a
>homosexual) while their partner has neither, the result would be no
>homosexual children, except that all the children would be carriers of the
>recessive gene (increasing the likelihood of homosexuality in following
>generations):
>
>T(1a)T(1b) + m(2a)m(2b) >
>T(1a)m(2a), T(1a)m(2b), T(1b)m(2a), T(1b)m(2b).
>
>In the case, however, of one homosexual parent with two recessive genes and
>another heterosexual parent, but with one recessive gene for homosexuality,
>the odds of homosexual children increase to 50%:
>
>T(1)m(1) + m(2a)m(2b) >
>T(1)m(2a), T(1)m(2b), m(1)m(2a), m(1)m(2b).
>
>Of course, in the case of two homosexual parents (both with two recessive
>genes), the chances of homosexual children would be 100%.
>
>This gets a good deal more complicated if we assume two entirely separate
>traits for males gayness and female lesbianism. Add in the possibility of
>multiple genes being involved, both dominant and recessive, with no single
>gene being sole deternminative factor, and the complication increases
>dramatically.
>
>None of this, of course, means that homosexuality is genetically
determined,
>but merely goes to show that the notion of homosexuality as an inheritable
>trait is not an absurd one. Probably the only way this issue would be
>settled once and for all would be if genetic science should succeed in
>isolating a specific gene for homosexuality, although it would still be
>doubtful that every instance of homosexuality might be genetically
>determined (as opposed to being sociologically or psychologically
determined).
>
>Is there some larger point you are trying to make here, John, especially
>related to Nietzsche? On the face of it, your position would seem to be 1)
>entirely absurd and 2) entirely unrelated to Nietzsche.
>
>Best,
>
>Steve C.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>¦ Steven E. Callihan            ¦        "The more mistrust,         ¦
>¦                               ¦        the more philosophy."       ¦
>¦ URL: http://www.callihan.com/ ¦                                    ¦
>¦ E-Mail: callihan-AT-callihan.com ¦-F. Nietzsche, The Gay Science, 346.¦
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Nietzsche was quite prescient when he wrote the democratic
movement inherits the Christian. To have high status within
the democratic system, greater glory, one is best to
be a member of a persecuted minority. Vicious attacks on the
existing social order and morality are therefore quite appropriate
in advancing your particular cause. In the final analysis, what
these little sects conspire towards is nihilism, pure and
simple. But it will not come to that, it must not come to
that.

In the political realm, with the becoming Imperium, this repugnant
witches' brew of Marxism, Darwinism and late Christianity will
have a stake driven through its heart. The final struggle for
the soul of the state has already begun. The time draws nigh
to take the offensive and wrest back political control of the state
from these miserable usurpers.

John T. Duryea



	--- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005