Which Is Worse

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
The actual fighting that goes on really isn't what most people have a problem with.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think you're wrong. most people have a problem with the actual fighting.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
the question is about staging the events, not participating in them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Staging either event is wrong. The first promotes natural cruelty but has no moral effect on the participants. The latter one is worse though, not only because of what it promotes, but because of the moral effect on the participants.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for the O.P. obviously the gay sex is worse. How is this even a question? Dog fights are awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

And earlier someone took the other side and also said "how is this even a question". That's when I know I am doing my job.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if the only people who choose the latter are the homophobic nut cases.

But back to what I meant by "how is this a question worth asking".

I assume you have some purpose for asking this question in the first place, one which I fully expect to see in a subsequent thread.

In the meantime, this appears to be nothing more than an outlet for people with self-identity issues to vent off about homosexuality without offering any hope of a more elevated discussion (chezlaw's challenges notwithstanding).

[Carded]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Animals fighting animals survival of the fittest at work

[/ QUOTE ]
homosexuality is a far more subtle display of survival of the fittest.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Since, surival of the fittest is about stay alive and procreating... Are you suggesting that since homosexual acts are not procreating they are inferior to hetersexual behavior?

[/ QUOTE ]
No I'm not suggesting that at all.


chez

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you suggesting then?


[/ QUOTE ]
That if you like displays of fit things surviving, you should watch the homosexuals.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I can just picture Chez standing up in his Bio-class informing the Prof. that the class time was being wasted on darwin and his finches and that they should all be watching Gay-Pornos instead.

[Silent A]

A hint to those of you who think Chezlaw is spouting idiocy.

Try forgetting about the direct consequences of homosexual sex itself, and try thinking about indirect effects of homosexuality and/or aspects that are very fit that could indirectly lead to some people becoming homosexuals.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
A hint to those of you who think Chezlaw is spouting idiocy.

Try forgetting about the direct consequences of homosexual sex itself, and try thinking about indirect effects of homosexuality and/or aspects that are very fit that could indirectly lead to some people becoming homosexuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

For what purpose? It is the direct consequences which interest man.

[Phil153]

It's stupid anyway. These have-an-answer-for-everything armchair evolutionists really piss me off. Just because we have a trait doesn't mean it contributed to fitness, and just because we have a trait doesn't mean we specifically evolved it. Examples: schizophrenia, missing limbs, skin wasting disease, and a heap of other genetic abnormalities.

Did you guys miss your high school class on inheritance?

[Subfallen]

Worse in what sense? One can justify either answer using any number of ethical considerations, none of which are are objectively established.

I mean, how does this question investigate any belief besides "God punishes sodomy?"

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Animals fighting animals survival of the fittest at work

[/ QUOTE ]
homosexuality is a far more subtle display of survival of the fittest.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Since, surival of the fittest is about stay alive and procreating... Are you suggesting that since homosexual acts are not procreating they are inferior to hetersexual behavior?

[/ QUOTE ]
No I'm not suggesting that at all.


chez

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you suggesting then?


[/ QUOTE ]
That if you like displays of fit things surviving, you should watch the homosexuals.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I can just picture Chez standing up in his Bio-class informing the Prof. that the class time was being wasted on darwin and his finches and that they should all be watching Gay-Pornos instead.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Bio-prof would understand, its part of darwinism not an alternative.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
It's stupid anyway. These have-an-answer-for-everything armchair evolutionists really piss me off. Just because we have a trait doesn't mean it contributed to fitness, and just because we have a trait doesn't mean we specifically evolved it. Examples: schizophrenia, missing limbs, skin wasting disease, and a heap of other genetic abnormalities.


[/ QUOTE ]
your confused here. When you talk about contributing to the fitness of something your way off base. That a trait doesn't contribute to the fitness of something else is nothing to do with whether the trait is fit.

chez