Scientists study the sex-lives of 2 traditional tribes in africa, they find:
>When asked about homosexuality or masturbation they found it difficult to understand these concepts and had no words for them. "They laughed as we tried to describe the mechanics behind the sexual activities and struggled to understand the purpose"
tfw pagan tribes in africa have better mental health and sexual practices enlightened humanists in the West.
jambo.africa.kyoto-u.ac.jp
than*
I know an article like this can be tempting to prove a point, but I will have to politely sage. These people behave the way they do because of environmental factors; they have to produce as many children as possible or else the tribe will die out. Place these same people in a Western urban environment, and they will more than likely become sexual libertines.
No one implied otherwise.
it definitely contradicts the "BUT I WAS BORN GAY" argument
How do we return to this primitive state while maintaining scientific and medical advancement?
Feels bad man
Not necessarily true, might be a biodiversity thing which they are predisposed to, just like how a massive majority of the African long-distance running champions originate from a single kenyan tribe.
Of course even predisposition can be overpowered by perverse environmental factors like there are in clownworld.
How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?
But are they strictly monogamous? *Ain't nobody got time to read sources, I'm here for shitposting*
This reminds me of a research. They put mice in crowded but plentiful environment not unlike cities. Deviancy, violence, etc. Stemming from boredom, stress, decadence, etc.
So, huge cities bad and nice small town good?
For Science, let some jews live among them for a while.
All of them?
Does it make sense for non-spatial, non-temporal beings to dance? I'm actually curious because I've never heard or read discussion of the topic outside its use an an idiot to express triviality.
*idiom
This is the primary factor in their culture. Easy living leads to idleness, and idleness ultimately leads to hedonism. Not to sound like an Anabaptist, but that's my observation.
Yup, its called behavioral sink loving in the big cities isn't inherently bad, just our over-abundance of consumables and females avaliable in a highly dense environment. No, im not advocating we destroy food or kill women, begone Molech >:( What im saying is if there was a highly dense environment but not an over abundance of food or women than there wouldn't be behavioral sink or maybe there could. Im not a sociologist
The conditions which begat behavioral sink are similar to the conditions that showed practically all rats to be cocaine addicts.
Another researcher gave the rats a cocaine option but also gave them a bunch of activities to do (runnings wheels, rat play stuff) and far fewer percentage became addicted.
I think this sink happens because our culture has no agreeable goal to reach toward. We're not all working for the Mars colony or working to eradicate an enemy so everyone just ends up living for themselves… with this deplorable result.
is no one gonna talk about that one tigga who just straight levitating lmao
The vocabulary you know and how it affects your psychology is truly fascinating. Did you know that in some african tribes they do not have words for concepts such as "Depression" and thus do not ever experience it? And in some other tribes they do not have words for concepts such as "Truth", "Honesty" and "Promise" and so are very unreliable without them even knowing that they are unreliable. Many tribes have no concept of time either, so you ask them to meet you tomorrow then they won't understand it.
This is why meditating and taking in the words of Scripture is highly nourishing for your mental health as it contains good concepts and words and using say obscenities is more damaging than you think. Coincidentally, this is why leftism/feminism is in actuality complete mental poison. It introduces concepts that are bogus and just serve to make you easier to control.
Its like what God said: Those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
How can there ever be an overabundance of women though (without a war killing off a lot of men, of course)? I thought the when you look at any population (assuming there hasn't been a war of course), the male-to-female ratio is basically 1:1. If a society can have significantly more women than men then why aren't polygamous civilisations successful?
From my understanding, the entirety of civilisation is built upon the contract between men and women i.e. men agreeing to be lifelong workhorses exclusively to one woman in exchange for women becoming that man's exclusive broodmare and sexual outlet. Without this contract, you get large groups of men who, without families, have no reason to give 100% of their labour. Yes, you can enslave men with a military of sorts and get their labour out of fear but it's never as effective as the 100% you get from a man that's working, happy in the knowledge that his work supports his family.
The explanation I always found is that the reason why people in 3rd world countries never experience depression is actually because they're too busy trying to survive to experience depression. You only really start to question what meaning your existence has when the things that threaten your existence are dealt with. Are you familiar with Maslow's Hierarchy, perhaps? Also, why have you assumed that you need to have a word for a concept before being able to think of it? My argument is essentially that it's not that they don't experience depression because they don't have a word for it but rather, they don't have a word for it because they don't experience it.
There are a lot of things in life that are understood through experience, not through words. Basically, it's like, if you never had a word for the colour you've come to know as "yellow", would you not still be aware of the reality that daffodils and butter were differing shades of the same colour?
I think language shapes our psychology, but not to the extent you're trying to argue. The idea that language either restricts or liberates your mind is an idea which, when taken to its logical extreme, results in people arguing for the globalisation of constructed languages like Esperanto because they believe that by abandoning the languages that naturally evolved out of a people's common experiences embracing this foreign, cerebral creation, they can elevate all peoples to the same level and finally create their leftist utopia.
I agree with your reasons for reading the scriptures though.
It's basically been proven that homosexuality is genetic. By exposing fetuses in primates and mice to increased levels of androgen, they become faggots.
that would be epigenetic, not genetic. right? i think theres another word for outside conditioning
No. Being exposed to androgen during fetal life creates homosexuality in various animals. In humans things like having a homosexual sibling increases ones chance of being a homo by ~25%.
Ya that's not genetic if it's caused by external, non-dna factors and it isn't hereditary
Yes.
Also, yes, they are limited in time-space, as all of the creation is. Only God is outside of time-space.
It is not "external", lad. Androgen is a type of hormone that mothers secrete. This is not anymore "external" than your sister's brain marinating in estrogen when she was a fetus.
Genetic: due to the DNA itself. Adding hormones to a fetus does not change the DNA in its cells. The DNA is (more or less) immutable, what your parents gave you is what you have for the rest of your life. Adding hormones can have a permanent effect, but it is in addition to whatever the DNA mandates, it does not change the mandates of the DNA itself.
Think of it like this: the DNA is the blueprint of a house, it mandates how workers are to build the house. But then the workers begin to slack off, use the wrong materials or do shoddy work. The blueprints stay the same, but the house has been altered anyway.
Introducing hormones from an external source is not genetic.
In addition, children adopted by a gay couple or 7 times more likely to be gay.
Immutable evidence that it is not genetic.
Are 7 times*
source for the 7x number
Trayce L. Hansen, PhD, psychologist and cultural commentator, wrote the following information in her article "Pro-Homosexual Researchers Conceal Findings: Children Raised by Openly Homosexual Parents More Likely to Engage in Homosexuality," accessed from her website, on May 29, 2009:
I mean if I had a woman dtf three times a night every night I wouldn’t jerk off either. Masturbation is a temptation that arises from a lack of available physical intimacy
You can’t.
it's one thing to sin and admit it, it's another to be in denial about it
Literally doesn't change the fact that sexuality is heritable.
It happens naturally in the womb.
You can literally tell that this person has no idea what she's talking about because she's starting with the premise of the blank slate. The idea that you can raise a child in a certain way and change its sexuality is retarded.
Also, this
is wrong. There's absolutely 0 evidence that parents have any impact at all on sexuality.
Also, nowhere does this say that this is about adopted children.
seems like they aren't so primitive after all
Being exposed to your moms' hormones in the womb is not "genetic". You don't understand these terms. Genetic means it comes pre-packed in the DNA you receive from your parents.
It could be that the sexuality is already there, hidden, and certain exposures bring it out. Like how people acquire fetishes and lose fetishes.
lesbians can't have babies on their own, so it doesn't explain the disproportionate gay kids reared by faggots.
People in third world countries are busy doing nothing. That's why their country is part of the third world.