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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005