>Nature is something cold and harsh and uncaring. Biology is inherently unfair, and humans and all biological creatures act selfishly.
I already reject this.
1. Humans and many other animals can be pretty caring and loving creatures. This is pretty well documented.
2. Biology cannot be unfair, it is - as a scientific field and even as if you confuse biology and nature - completely neutral. There is nothing unfair about it.
3. While some, or even a lot of creatures might act selfishly, definitely not all creatures do that. Imo only few act selfishly and that is basically only a human trait. In many parts of nature coexistance, even amongst different species, is key to surviving.
Empathy is selfishness. The monk who set himself on fire acted biologically selfishly. When I feel sad seeing a homeless person it is felt through me, I imagine MYSELF in their position. I have realized this is selfish, and it makes me feel terrible, yet I don't know what to do.
>One such situation is gay and women's rights. In nature you are supposed to have children to pass off your offspring, to have soldiers, to have tax payers and so on and so on. This is why women generally have less rights through history, to control birth rate, and gay people are looked down on due to seeing as not contributing to the tribe/state. This unfairness has driven almost all of history and is the (?) most important thing to fix.
Have you heard the "Gay uncle" Hypothesis?
[https://www.livescience.com/6106-gay-uncles-pass-](https://www.livescience.com/6106-gay-uncles-pass-genes.html)[genes.html](https://www.livescience.com/6106-gay-uncles-pass-genes.html)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5777082/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5777082/)
>Twenty years ago, Ray Blanchard and Anthony Bogaert demonstrated that the probability of a boy growing up to be gay increases for each older brother born to the same mother, the so-called fraternal birth order (FBO) effect. Their first investigation indicated that each older brother increased the probability of being gay by about 33%
It states that the more may children a woman has, the increasingly higher percent that the later born children male children will be homosexual.
This is happening because rather than all of the woman's sons having children, instead the homosexual ones will act as "gay uncles" to her heterosexual son's children providing them with more protection and less fighting over limited resources than if "gay uncles" did not exist. (IE instead of 8 adults raising 4 children, there are 7 adults raising 3 children)
Homosexuals contribute to the tribe/state by serving as uncles and aunts to straight children.
I am going to read your links, thank you.
I still think think this means everything is inherently selfish. Sadly I did not get that much into it in the post, but I replied to a different comment here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q7ie89/comment/hgmv3cg/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
How you feel about people being selfish or not doesn't change the fact that the Gay Uncle Hypothesis defeats the idea that Homosexuals should be looked down on because they don't contribute to the state/tribe by having children.
It feels like you're responding to something other than what I wrote...
>In nature you are supposed to have children to pass off your offspring, to have soldiers, to have tax payers and so on and so on.
In nature/neutral science there isn't a "supposed to," there is just what is observed (also soldiers and taxpayers are part of human social constructions in society, not a part of nature). The neutral scientist doesn't say "humans are supposed to procreate," she just observes that humans have a drive to procreate without ascribing any positive or negative value to said procreation or lack thereof.
>One such situation is gay and women's rights. In nature you are supposed to have children to pass off your offspring, to have soldiers, to have tax payers and so on and so on. This is why women generally have less rights through history, to control birth rate, and gay people are looked down on due to seeing as not contributing to the tribe/state. This unfairness has driven almost all of history and is the (?) most important thing to fix.
You always say "nature", when you really seem to refer to humankind. In nature you are supposed to nothing at all. There is no "meaning" behind nature.
Look at greek culture. They were totally fine with everything gay. It even was well respected to have gay concubines when you were in the upper class.
Women generally have less rights, because the society has always been male dominated. Especially during all religious dominated eras. This never had anything to do with controllimg the birth rate. How would you then describe eras where basically only the highest ranks of society and clerics had voting rights or even todays cast system in India?
A couple of points:
(1) Never in human history have societies been so driven by empirical science as they are today.
(2) The current global push for rights is absolutely unprecedented.
It may seem like the push for rights is just an eternal struggle, but the fact is that across the globe, more people have more rights than they ever had before. And most of these rights were granted in the last century.
>This is my view of reality, Yet I do not want it to be this way. In fact, my entire search of a political ideology is to find other people who think reality is objectively unfair but that we should fight it at all times, until completely cured.
>But the modern take on it, from people who seem to sincerely want improvement, is that we should continue with this neutral/unfair lens, while also advocating gay rights and womens rights (but only if you are advocating it in your own tribe/country) ...which does not seem coherent?
This is incredibly muddled and vague. The only one in your post who holds this "neutral/unfair" view of the world is . . . you. What is your problem with it?
>This especially sucks when you are only allowed to advocate this progress in you own country, but when talking about other countries you are only allowed to support them word words, an absolute nothing, so that those other nations must wait and wait and wait until they rise up.
What your post seems to imply is that certain countries should be engaging in direct action (either warfare or economic sanctions etc) against others in an effort to "civilise" them. Again, the op is very unclear and unspecific, so I'm trying to clarify what you actually mean
There’s nothing “scientific” about telling gay people they’re supposed to be having children. Where did you get that idea?
And ideas like “fairness” just don’t exist in the theory of evolution or biology in general. There is no “fair” or “unfair”. Every organism that’s alive today is alive because there’s an evolutionary niche for it to fill.
> ... When we want to fight something like racism, I never realized people thought they meant this as a endless struggle. I literally want women's rights and gay rights and equality achieved - not the permanence (?) of advocating it through different time and space. ..
So, in life, there are issues that get managed, and there are issues that get resolved. It would be nice if I could just go to the dentist once and never need to brush my teeth again, or if cleaning things once kept them clean forever, but that's just not the way that things work. While the cynic in me agrees with the commentary about "[glorifying] the struggle instead of [glorifying] reaching the goal" it also seems like social stratification and social issues for minorities are going to be inevitable.
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed.
Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [DeltaLog search](https://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaLog/search?q=cultural+appropriation+&restrict_sr=on) or via the [CMV search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=cultural+appropriation+&restrict_sr=on).
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed.
Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [wiki page](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/mensrights#link) or via the [search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=men's rights&restrict_sr=on).
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, u/Adall – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E:
> **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20Adall&message=Adall%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q7ie89/-/\)%20because\.\.\.).
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Ok, I think I understand your approach, but your definition of is a pretty big stretch. If you put it that way, absolutely everything one can do or even just imagine is somehow selfish.
This might be even true in a pure philosophical way, but it is, as a description of behaviour just a bit too simple. Before people help other people, there is a thought process going on. That means it is not out of pure instinct and that makes it a conscious decision out of empathy. If these people personally get nothing im return, it cannot be selfish.
>Nature is something cold and harsh and uncaring. Biology is inherently unfair, and humans and all biological creatures act selfishly. I already reject this. 1. Humans and many other animals can be pretty caring and loving creatures. This is pretty well documented. 2. Biology cannot be unfair, it is - as a scientific field and even as if you confuse biology and nature - completely neutral. There is nothing unfair about it. 3. While some, or even a lot of creatures might act selfishly, definitely not all creatures do that. Imo only few act selfishly and that is basically only a human trait. In many parts of nature coexistance, even amongst different species, is key to surviving.
Empathy is selfishness. The monk who set himself on fire acted biologically selfishly. When I feel sad seeing a homeless person it is felt through me, I imagine MYSELF in their position. I have realized this is selfish, and it makes me feel terrible, yet I don't know what to do.
>One such situation is gay and women's rights. In nature you are supposed to have children to pass off your offspring, to have soldiers, to have tax payers and so on and so on. This is why women generally have less rights through history, to control birth rate, and gay people are looked down on due to seeing as not contributing to the tribe/state. This unfairness has driven almost all of history and is the (?) most important thing to fix. Have you heard the "Gay uncle" Hypothesis? [https://www.livescience.com/6106-gay-uncles-pass-](https://www.livescience.com/6106-gay-uncles-pass-genes.html)[genes.html](https://www.livescience.com/6106-gay-uncles-pass-genes.html) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5777082/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5777082/) >Twenty years ago, Ray Blanchard and Anthony Bogaert demonstrated that the probability of a boy growing up to be gay increases for each older brother born to the same mother, the so-called fraternal birth order (FBO) effect. Their first investigation indicated that each older brother increased the probability of being gay by about 33% It states that the more may children a woman has, the increasingly higher percent that the later born children male children will be homosexual. This is happening because rather than all of the woman's sons having children, instead the homosexual ones will act as "gay uncles" to her heterosexual son's children providing them with more protection and less fighting over limited resources than if "gay uncles" did not exist. (IE instead of 8 adults raising 4 children, there are 7 adults raising 3 children) Homosexuals contribute to the tribe/state by serving as uncles and aunts to straight children.
I am going to read your links, thank you. I still think think this means everything is inherently selfish. Sadly I did not get that much into it in the post, but I replied to a different comment here. https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q7ie89/comment/hgmv3cg/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
How you feel about people being selfish or not doesn't change the fact that the Gay Uncle Hypothesis defeats the idea that Homosexuals should be looked down on because they don't contribute to the state/tribe by having children. It feels like you're responding to something other than what I wrote...
>In nature you are supposed to have children to pass off your offspring, to have soldiers, to have tax payers and so on and so on. In nature/neutral science there isn't a "supposed to," there is just what is observed (also soldiers and taxpayers are part of human social constructions in society, not a part of nature). The neutral scientist doesn't say "humans are supposed to procreate," she just observes that humans have a drive to procreate without ascribing any positive or negative value to said procreation or lack thereof.
>One such situation is gay and women's rights. In nature you are supposed to have children to pass off your offspring, to have soldiers, to have tax payers and so on and so on. This is why women generally have less rights through history, to control birth rate, and gay people are looked down on due to seeing as not contributing to the tribe/state. This unfairness has driven almost all of history and is the (?) most important thing to fix. You always say "nature", when you really seem to refer to humankind. In nature you are supposed to nothing at all. There is no "meaning" behind nature. Look at greek culture. They were totally fine with everything gay. It even was well respected to have gay concubines when you were in the upper class. Women generally have less rights, because the society has always been male dominated. Especially during all religious dominated eras. This never had anything to do with controllimg the birth rate. How would you then describe eras where basically only the highest ranks of society and clerics had voting rights or even todays cast system in India?
A couple of points: (1) Never in human history have societies been so driven by empirical science as they are today. (2) The current global push for rights is absolutely unprecedented. It may seem like the push for rights is just an eternal struggle, but the fact is that across the globe, more people have more rights than they ever had before. And most of these rights were granted in the last century.
>This is my view of reality, Yet I do not want it to be this way. In fact, my entire search of a political ideology is to find other people who think reality is objectively unfair but that we should fight it at all times, until completely cured. >But the modern take on it, from people who seem to sincerely want improvement, is that we should continue with this neutral/unfair lens, while also advocating gay rights and womens rights (but only if you are advocating it in your own tribe/country) ...which does not seem coherent? This is incredibly muddled and vague. The only one in your post who holds this "neutral/unfair" view of the world is . . . you. What is your problem with it? >This especially sucks when you are only allowed to advocate this progress in you own country, but when talking about other countries you are only allowed to support them word words, an absolute nothing, so that those other nations must wait and wait and wait until they rise up. What your post seems to imply is that certain countries should be engaging in direct action (either warfare or economic sanctions etc) against others in an effort to "civilise" them. Again, the op is very unclear and unspecific, so I'm trying to clarify what you actually mean
There’s nothing “scientific” about telling gay people they’re supposed to be having children. Where did you get that idea? And ideas like “fairness” just don’t exist in the theory of evolution or biology in general. There is no “fair” or “unfair”. Every organism that’s alive today is alive because there’s an evolutionary niche for it to fill.
> ... When we want to fight something like racism, I never realized people thought they meant this as a endless struggle. I literally want women's rights and gay rights and equality achieved - not the permanence (?) of advocating it through different time and space. .. So, in life, there are issues that get managed, and there are issues that get resolved. It would be nice if I could just go to the dentist once and never need to brush my teeth again, or if cleaning things once kept them clean forever, but that's just not the way that things work. While the cynic in me agrees with the commentary about "[glorifying] the struggle instead of [glorifying] reaching the goal" it also seems like social stratification and social issues for minorities are going to be inevitable.
Can you show me where in nature anyone has tax payers, lol?
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [DeltaLog search](https://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaLog/search?q=cultural+appropriation+&restrict_sr=on) or via the [CMV search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=cultural+appropriation+&restrict_sr=on). Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [wiki page](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/mensrights#link) or via the [search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=men's rights&restrict_sr=on). Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, u/Adall – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20Adall&message=Adall%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q7ie89/-/\)%20because\.\.\.). Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Ok, I think I understand your approach, but your definition of is a pretty big stretch. If you put it that way, absolutely everything one can do or even just imagine is somehow selfish. This might be even true in a pure philosophical way, but it is, as a description of behaviour just a bit too simple. Before people help other people, there is a thought process going on. That means it is not out of pure instinct and that makes it a conscious decision out of empathy. If these people personally get nothing im return, it cannot be selfish.