Political and politically incorrect humor

MasterKromm · September 27, 2011

The picture left out the whole 450 species out of a total 1.7 million species, but hey it's cool.

450/1.7x10^6 -> 0.00026

1/450 -> 0.00222

So, another way of looking at it is -> homosexuality is less common amongst known species than homophobia is amongst species known to exhibit homosexuality.

Myrthos · September 27, 2011

Your calculation is flawed as you assume that 1.7million - 450 species do not show any signs of homosexuality, which is impossible to back up without proper research.
Wikipedia states (for whatever it is worth):

A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them

And

A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species.

Then again the article also states that most of them are probably bi-sexual and that the observation of homosexual behavior in animals can be seen as both an argument for and against the acceptance of homosexuality in humans

zakhal · September 27, 2011

It was natural among humans too but something happened in the last two thousand years that made it all unnatural.

Alrik Fassbauer · September 27, 2011

I recently learned that I must not call my traumatic fear that I gained through mobbing at school "homophobia" anymore.

Instead, I must use the word "traumatic fear" nowadays.

No joke.

When I found out, I was quite astonished that a term of clinical fear has evolved into something that's equal to racism.

I'm waiting for the day until words like Claustrophobia, Spheksophobia and similar clinical terms evolve similar to this.

It will probably end up calling someone who has an actual Spheksophobia as a "racist against wasps" or something like that.

MasterKromm · September 27, 2011

Myrthos said:
Your calculation is flawed as you assume that 1.7million - 450 species do not show any signs of homosexuality, which is impossible to back up without proper research.
Wikipedia states (for whatever it is worth):
And

Then again the article also states that most of them are probably bi-sexual and that the observation of homosexual behavior in animals can be seen as both an argument for and against the acceptance of homosexuality in humans

I was only messing… TBH, I wonder how many species have the mental capacity to even know the difference(as in they are conscious/self aware of their orientation - which as the article pointed out, is rarely carried out to the exclusion of heterosexual activities). Homosexuality is only an issue in the animal kingdom if it is somehow to the exclusion of reproduction. Which, I believe, is unheard of. Another interesting phenomena is Social(but not necessarily sexual) monogamy. I've seen mother nature at work, and some of the stuff is just crazy…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/mar/08/highereducation.research

But does that duck really know what it is doing?

zakhal · September 27, 2011

MasterKromm said:
Homosexuality is only an issue in the animal kingdom if it is somehow to the exclusion of reproduction. Which, I believe, is unheard of. Another interesting phenomena is Social(but not necessarily sexual) monogamy. I've seen mother nature at work, and some of the stuff is just crazy…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/mar/08/highereducation.research

But does that duck really know what it is doing?

The corpse is propably so fresh that he doesnt notice the difference.

But nice to see somone bring necrophilia and rape into homosexual discussion! I think in some 50000 years we propably cease to have sex alltogether but instead just shake hands to deliver DNA.

MasterKromm · September 27, 2011

zakhal said:
The corpse is propably so fresh that he doesnt notice the difference.

But nice to see somone bring necrophilia and rape into homosexual discussion!

That is kind of my point… Rape, necrophilia and even homosexuality in the animal kingdom have no basis for comparisons to human behavior.

I think in some 50000 years we propably cease to have sex alltogether but instead just shake hands to deliver DNA.

I have doubts we'll even be around in 50k years.

zakhal · September 27, 2011

MasterKromm said:
I have doubts we'll even be around in 50k years.

I dont know. Weve been here for million(s) years. 50k is nothing. The only thing that might stop us is the endless debates about which deity to believe and whether such and such thing should be allowed or not.

Drithius · September 27, 2011

zakhal said:
I dont know. Weve been here for million(s) years.

Approximately 200,000 actually. And 99% of that without our current ability to destroy ourselves through various means. In my opinion, if we do die off, it will likely be through a plague. And the universe will happily continue on.

MasterKromm · September 27, 2011

Drithius said:
Approximately 200,000 actually. And 99% of that without our current ability to destroy ourselves through various means. In my opinion, if we do die off, it will likely be through a plague. And the universe will happily continue on.

Bingo, 20th and 21st century weaponry and technology paired with human impulse, greed, pride and stupidity is a helluva mixture.

Also, you make a good point with your plague spin… Regardless of whether it is a naturally occurring event or man made, our globalized environment almost guarantees all would be affected by it.

zakhal · September 27, 2011

Drithius said:
Approximately 200,000 actually. And 99% of that without our current ability to destroy ourselves through various means. In my opinion, if we do die off, it will likely be through a plague. And the universe will happily continue on.

First of homo genus walked and made tools 2-3 million years ago.

I wont reply to this thread anymore since its OT.

Myrthos · September 27, 2011

I think we are getting carried away here. Let's focus on the humor part again.
The next post made is on topic or is (re)moved.

dteowner · September 27, 2011

Ah, but I can bring it all together, master. Behold, fossils of early democrats:

Thrasher · September 27, 2011

From before there was a Republican party. This is the ancestor of Rick Perry.

dteowner · September 27, 2011

Don't know that I'd argue that one, Thrasher. Obviously, I loves me some fiscal policy like Perry has done, but a lot of his social stuff (particularly his endorsement of the nonsense going on with their board of education) gives me the willies. Besides, it will be far too easy for the media to paint him as a nutjob which could yield us another 4 year sentence in Obama Hell. Romney's an empty shirt, but he's more electable. I just wish My Man Mitch had run.

edit
And so we don't get in trouble with He Who Must Be Obeyed:

Thrasher · September 27, 2011

Yep, I'd say Romney has one of the best chances of getting elected out of the bunch because more due to his lack of stupidity than anything else.

dteowner · September 27, 2011

Better week for Time:

Thrasher · September 27, 2011

Love that caricature of Bachman. The first Obama isn't bad either.

Alrik Fassbauer · September 29, 2011

Hm, I don't quite understand the last two caricatures. Anyone to enlighten me ?

Ubereil · September 29, 2011

Rick Perry is govenor of Texas, and is (more or less) in charge of undermining the entire public (and otherwise) education of said state (which hinders everyone else too, since books are printed with the Texan educational standards in mind).

Michelle Bachmann opposes vaccine, which is so nutty it's ruining her entire campaign.

Übereil, who thinks it's something like that

Political and politically incorrect humor

Sentinel

Cave Canem

SasqWatch

TL;DR

Sentinel

SasqWatch

Sentinel

SasqWatch

Magic & Loss

Sentinel

SasqWatch

Cave Canem

Shoegazer

Attachments

Wheeee!

Shoegazer

Wheeee!

Shoegazer

Wheeee!

TL;DR

Keeper of the Watch