Ricardolindo
Well-known member
I don't believe in moral relativism.
I do care more about the Islamic world and Africa.
Had Trump been reelected in 2020, do you think that Putin would have still invaded Ukraine?
- Thread starter WolfBear
- Start date
I do care more about the Islamic world and Africa.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
I believe in national sovereignty, I hate special interest groups,I am sick and tired of the gender lobby and the leftoid virtue signalers that have a LGBBQTKFC fetish.
Ricardolindo
Well-known member
Do you regard Western Poland and Eastern Poland as functionally different? The law is the same across all of Poland even with social attitudes being different.
Speaking of national sovereignty, what do you think of Poland having gained Pomerania and Lower Silesia from Germany in 1945? Pomerania and Lower Silesia had almost no Poles.
Male-female couples won't be the only couples capable of engaging in baby-making indefinitely. In-vitro gametogenesis will almost certainly eventually become a thing, after all. Then we'll be able to make artificial eggs from males' DNA and artificial sperm from females' DNA.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
I think that I don't give a rat's ass about your special interest group pandering and that Poland got those regions as just compensation for the territorial losses to the USSR and the Material and Human losses it suffered during WWII.An any case, there are no ethnic Germans there, only Poles.
Keep your self-centered off topic spam where it belongs, out of this thread.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
Maybe, and maybe the genes responsible for homosexuality will be identified and and removed via generic surgery, since the majority of Earth's population is rather homophobic and will probably become more so with demographic changes.
If you can create an artificial womb and the other requisite tech for same sex reproduction, go for it.
Otherwise this is "unicorns and pegasi" level wishful thinking and speculation.
Homosexuality is for the most part not due to genes since its heritability is fairly low.
And most future gay men will likely be conservative and/or religious due to the fraternal birth order effect making younger sons more likely to be gay, thus making them perceived in a more positive light by future generations of conservative and religious people, especially if a lot of them will live like this specific gay Mormon man is currently living:
Perspective: A controversial tweet led this Latter-day Saint gay man down an unexpected path
The creator of the “Sit Down with Sky and Preston” podcast talks about why he stands up for his faith and his family.
www.deseret.com
Though personally if I was a conservative and religious gay man who was married to a woman, I'd still want to have the marriage be open (non-monogamous) with my spouse's consent.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
That is not what most of the "born that way" proponents of Alphabet soup lobby are saying.Homosexuality is for the most part not due to genes since its heritability is fairly low.
And most future gay men will likely be conservative and/or religious due to the fraternal birth order effect making younger sons more likely to be gay, thus making them perceived in a more positive light by future generations of conservative and religious people, especially if a lot of them will live like this specific gay Mormon man is currently living:
Perspective: A controversial tweet led this Latter-day Saint gay man down an unexpected path
The creator of the “Sit Down with Sky and Preston” podcast talks about why he stands up for his faith and his family.
Though personally if I was a conservative and religious gay man who was married to a woman, I'd still want to have the marriage be open (non-monogamous) with my spouse's consent.
As to your open marriage, well that would be between you and your spouse and your boyfriend.
You ARE born that way:
Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It's just likely that prenatal factors also play a large role in this. In addition to the fraternal birth order effect for younger male siblings, it's possible that there could also be hormonal imbalances during pregnancy that cause homosexuality or something like that. Not guaranteed, of course, but possible. There's also Greg Cochran's gay germ theory:
But I'm personally more inclined to believe in the prenatal explanation, especially considering that gay people apparently often have distinct facial features:
This psychologist’s "gaydar" research makes us uncomfortable. That’s the point.
Michal Kosinski used artificial intelligence to detect sexual orientation. Let him explain why.
www.vox.com
If true, this further strengthens the case for a prenatal cause for homosexuality since facial masculinization and feminization is probably much more likely to occur in utero as a result of hormones than as a result of a pathogen after birth. Though there is a possibility that a pathogen could cause hormonal imbalances in pregnant women or something like that. But just a possibility. It's only a hypothesis as of right now.
And re: Open marriage: I don't want a boyfriend. I want a girlfriend. All women lol!
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
Vox and Wikipedia, seriously...You ARE born that way:
Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia
It's just likely that prenatal factors also play a large role in this. In addition to the fraternal birth order effect for younger male siblings, it's possible that there could also be hormonal imbalances during pregnancy that cause homosexuality or something like that. Not guaranteed, of course, but possible. There's also Greg Cochran's gay germ theory:
But I'm personally more inclined to believe in the prenatal explanation, especially considering that gay people apparently often have distinct facial features:
This psychologist’s "gaydar" research makes us uncomfortable. That’s the point.
Michal Kosinski used artificial intelligence to detect sexual orientation. Let him explain why.
If true, this further strengthens the case for a prenatal cause for homosexuality since facial masculinization and feminization is probably much more likely to occur in utero as a result of hormones than as a result of a pathogen after birth. Though there is a possibility that a pathogen could cause hormonal imbalances in pregnant women or something like that. But just a possibility. It's only a hypothesis as of right now.
And re: Open marriage: I don't want a boyfriend. I want a girlfriend. All women lol!
Would you prefer this source instead lol?
Greg Cochran’s “Gay Germ” Hypothesis – An Exercise in the Power of Germs
In this post, I will review Gregory Cochran’s “gay germ” hypothesis. I wanted to make an index of Cochran’s posts from his and Henry Harpending’s blog West Hunter that…
jaymans.wordpress.com
I disagree with his conclusions re: The gay germ, FWIW. If there is a germ, it likely affects pregnant women by altering their hormonal balance or something like that, not alters the sexuality of already-born people. I haven't heard of any already-born straight people becoming gay as a result of contracting a virus and/or an infection, after all.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
Even more reason for your wife to chop off your balls and feed them to you, since you are a horny dog.
At least you could have hoped that your hypothetical wife's fujoshi tendencies would have saved you if you were boinking a dude on the side.
What I find extraordinarily sad is that viscerally extreme US homophobes have helped build and shape the extremely homophobic movements in Sub-Saharan African countries such as Uganda:
Meet the American pastor behind Uganda's anti-gay crackdown
Scott Lively has stirred up hate from Moscow to Kampala. Watch him in action.
www.motherjones.com
Even more reason for your wife to chop off your balls and feed them to you, since you are a horny dog.
At least you could have hoped that your hypothetical wife's fujoshi tendencies would have saved you if you were boinking a dude on the side.
The open marriage will be open for my future wife as well, you know? After all, I am well-aware that a plump, pudgy person such as myself would be incapable of permanently satisfying her lol!
This is ALL entirely off topic people.
BOT: I'll say it again. Putin doesn't invade while Trump is president. TOO much risk. With Biden in charge...it's obvious the US leadership is weak-kneed.
BOT: I'll say it again. Putin doesn't invade while Trump is president. TOO much risk. With Biden in charge...it's obvious the US leadership is weak-kneed.
Chaos Marine
Well-known member
Exactly. What people think when they hear Russian military is this:
But in practice, due to the nature of the war and not declaring mobilization, the bulk of the fighting has to be done by this:
And because it's a special operation, subtract about 1/3 in conscripts.
Nearly 400,000 contractors serve in Russian army
Since 2012, the number of contractors has nearly doubled, according to the defense minister
tass.com
Note that this 394k is for whole armed forces, not just ground forces. Officers not included, should be around 200-250k. So the whole of Russia's professional army is about 600-700k, and a lot of support staff, navy and so on is not really applicable to the conflict, so effectively they can apply only something around 300k counting in some support.
And then there is something between 40k and 80k of assorted separatists and mercs of varying but mostly low quality.
Last edited:
AFAIK, Russia isn't on full mobilization right now but Ukraine is, which in turn means that Russia's ability potential over Ukraine is incapable of actually being realized. Full mobilization could trigger much more discontent in Russia since Russians might prefer it much more if someone other than themselves will actually fight and die in order to regather the Russian lands.