Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

Australian news and politics.

Monoethnic Social Club said:
No thats NOT what Im saying at all... I agree with you that it is NOT a choice, at least not ALWAYS a choice , but a behavioural issue, a matter of psychology as oposed to pure biology.

Sexual intercourse is designed (by nature or by God or a combination of both, you decide) to feel good for a reason... It's intention is to procreate and continue the species. The "push" by nature then is both a behavioural one and a physical sensation one... Why design a waste system with pleasure receptors around the prostate gland....? Fark it make no biological sense what so ever but maybe there is a reason??? I mean our reporductive organs are also used to expell urine for both male and female, maybe its a design flaw that Elon Musk can breed out of us with robots?
Click to expand...

Stuff happens in the human body that is an accident or a by product of evolution. No one, except your intelligent design boofheads, has ever said the human body is perfect, it just has to be good enough. It's got all sorts of defects.

The eye has evolved to be backwards and upside down for example.
 
Last edited:
Just on that. Look up the vagus nerve and the convoluted path it travels in us due to us evolving from fish. Fascinating.

Far more exaggerated in giraffes where it goes a metre or 2 and then loops back.
 
Muz said:
Of course there's environmental and societal reasons but I'm 100% sure infertility has happened well before humans moved into cities 7000 years ago.

It was an example of something that doesn't have an evolutionary advantage but still occurs.

Counterintuitively infertility can be genetic. Go figure.

The Genetics of Infertility: Current Status of the Field - PMC

Infertility is a relatively common health condition, affecting nearly 7% of all couples. Clinically, it is a highly heterogeneous pathology with a complex etiology that includes environmental and genetic factors. It has been estimated that nearly ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


Infertility is a relatively common health condition, affecting nearly 7% of all couples. Clinically, it is a highly heterogeneous pathology with a complex etiology that includes environmental and genetic factors. It has been estimated that nearly 50% of infertility cases are due to genetic defects. Hundreds of studies with animal knockout models convincingly showed infertility to be caused by gene defects, single or multiple. However, despite enormous efforts, progress in translating basic research findings into clinical studies has been challenging. The genetic causes remain unexplained for the vast majority of male or female infertility patients. A particular difficulty is the huge number of candidate genes to be studied; there are more than 2,300 genes expressed in the testis alone, and hundreds of those genes influence reproductive function in humans and could contribute to male infertility. At present, there are only a handful of genes or genetic defects that have been shown to cause, or to be strongly associated with, primary infertility. Yet, with completion of the human genome and progress in personalized medicine, the situation is rapidly changing. Indeed, there are 10-15 new gene tests, on average, being added to the clinical genetic testing list annually.
Click to expand...
Im sorry mate but I dint get your point on this?

You understand that any evolutionary change happens over 10s of thousands of years... Humans 7000 years ago , although perhaps slightly shorter, didnt look too different to what we do today...

BTW 7000 yearsa go is impossible, the universe is only 6000 years old remeber? hahahahah

I heard an interesting quote yesterday. Religion explains the universe requiring you to have faith in many small miracles, Science explains the universe requiring you to have blind faith in ONE miraculous big bang.
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
Im sorry mate but I dint get your point on this?

You understand that any evolutionary change happens over 10s of thousands of years... Humans 7000 years ago , although perhaps slightly shorter, didnt look too different to what we do today...

BTW 7000 yearsa go is impossible, the universe is only 6000 years old remeber? hahahahah

I heard an interesting quote yesterday. Religion explains the universe requiring you to have faith in many small miracles, Science explains the universe requiring you to have blind faith in ONE miraculous big bang.
Click to expand...

My point is you were asking what's the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality if it doesn't result in procreation. I, it appears, misunderstood you saying that as because it can't occur naturally it therefore must be a choice. (An argument many make by the way.)

I'm was countering that by saying what's the evolutionary advantage of infertility for the same reasons.
 
Last edited:
Monoethnic Social Club said:
Im sorry mate but I dint get your point on this?

You understand that any evolutionary change happens over 10s of thousands of years... Humans 7000 years ago , although perhaps slightly shorter, didnt look too different to what we do today...

BTW 7000 yearsa go is impossible, the universe is only 6000 years old remeber? hahahahah

I heard an interesting quote yesterday. Religion explains the universe requiring you to have faith in many small miracles, Science explains the universe requiring you to have blind faith in ONE miraculous big bang.
Click to expand...

Your big ONE is who made God.

And we don't have 'faith' in the big bang, evidence points towards it. We readily admit we don't know what happened before it. That's not 'faith', that's a problem to be solved.

Also the mutation that allows humans to drink milk only happened 7000 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Muz said:
Stuff happens in the human body that is an accident or a by product of evolution. No one, except your intelligent design boofheads, has ever said the human body is perfect it just has to be good enough. It's got all sorts of defects.

The eye has evolved to be backwards and upside down for example.
Click to expand...
Of course it does, nobody is claiming evolution is perfect... Musing on a subject is beyond the "Republican vs Democrat" mantra mate...

Are you familiar with the theory of island biodiversity? In broad brushstrokes, studies in (the Caribbean I think from memory) found parrot populations, all within very acceible flight frome ach other but which had developed different beak shapes to be able to better eat the local seed and fruits ont heir specific island... Intelligent design would look at that and say perfect adaptability to environment = the touch of God's hand at work... Evolutionary biology would look at the same outcome and claim that access to resource with less expenditure of caloric energy leads to bological adptation over multiple generations to favour mutation of adaptable traits..... Its NOT Trump vs Bernie Sanders here....
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
Of course it does, nobody is claiming evolution is perfect... Musing on a subject is beyond the "Republican vs Democrat" mantra mate...

Are you familiar with the theory of island biodiversity? In broad brushstrokes, studies in (the Caribbean I think from memory) found parrot populations, all within very acceible flight frome ach other but which had developed different beak shapes to be able to better eat the local seed and fruits ont heir specific island... Intelligent design would look at that and say perfect adaptability to environment = the touch of God's hand at work... Evolutionary biology would look at the same outcome and claim that access to resource with less expenditure of caloric energy leads to bological adptation over multiple generations to favour mutation of adaptable traits..... Its NOT Trump vs Bernie Sanders here....
Click to expand...

Turtles in the Galapagos too.

Or just Australia in general.
 
Last edited:
Muz said:
Your big ONE is who made God.

And we don't have 'faith' in the big bang, evidence points towards it. We readily admit we don't know what happened before it. That's not 'faith' that's a problem to be solved.

Also the mutation that allows humans to drink milk only happened 7000 years ago.
Click to expand...
So what did baby humans drink before then, water and diet coke?

Evidence points towards the existence of God, shit its even peer reviewed, there are many different authors of books in the Bible :P
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
So what did baby humans drink before then, water and diet coke?

Evidence points towards the existence of God, shit its even peer reviewed, there are many different authors of books in the Bible :P
Click to expand...

Breast milk. I should have said we evolved the ability to drink cows milk only 7000 years ago.

The default position for humans is lactose intolerance.
 
Muz said:
Breast milk. I should have said cow milk.
Click to expand...
Thats probably because cows wheren't domesticated until much much later.. is probably also the reason why we cannot properly digest many animals to this day, because it took us thousands of years to breed sheep, cows, goats, chickens to be consistent and digestible...

Anyway this conversation has been thoroughly enjoyable but we have flown WAY off track on Aussie News and politics... Sorry to those bored...
 
erogenouszone said:
They reckon humans only have back problems because our back shape is from when we were on all fours.
Click to expand...

1000 %. The 2 curves we have cause all sorts of issues.

Though I would be interested in how much that has to do with sitting on your arse all day.

Whenever I go on holidays we spend days walking 10kms+ and all my back twinges and stiffness just go out the window. Our stupid sedentary lifestyle would have a lot to do with it.

It would be interesting to look at whatever few nomadic natives we have left for a comparison.

One thing's for sure we never evolved to be sitting still.
 
Last edited:
zimbos05 said:
I know it would be hard to understand, but that is not being a Muslim
Click to expand...
To be fair, while the majority of Muslims don’t eat pork or drink alcohol, a lot of the ones in Albania and the former Yugoslavia do. Albania did a health study back in 2017 and found that most Albanian men drank alcohol and were not circumcised. Bektashi (a local branch of Islam) were quite unlikely to be circumcised or sober, but less than half of other Muslims were as well. Not sure about other parts of the world but at the Socceroos vs Indonesia game a lot of the Indonesians were going to the bar (Indonesia is majority Muslim but has specific places that aren’t, like Bali is Hindu and some other islands are Christian).

I think part of this is European secularism (just like how many if not most European Christians don’t go to church every week anymore or aren’t baptised), but also communism banned organised religion in the Eastern Bloc (modern-day China, which is still communist, recognises five religions: Buddhism, Catholicism, Islam and Protestantism, with other religions often being oppressed or not commonly practised). However, even if not practised, culturally people will still call themselves part of a religion (that part of the world is quite sectarian, with Catholics in Croatia, Muslims in Albania and Kosovo, and Orthodox in Serbia (plus all three in Bosnia) having fought some wars against each other before and many still hold grudges, e.g Serbia still claims sovereignty over Kosovo and Croatia vs Serbia or Albania vs Serbia matches in football cause a lot of fights).

TL;DR: Balkan Muslims do, other Muslims don’t. The reason: secularism and communism.
 
Muz said:
I'll bite.

Given they've faced a lifetime of intolerance at best, abuse at worst, because of who they are because some desert dwelling arab from 2000 years ago said they're not real people yeah probably.
Click to expand...
Interestingly Jesus himself (who was Jewish, not Arab, unless you mean Muhammad) never actually spoke about homosexuality. And in the Bible, he ate dinner with tax collectors and said to a group of religious leaders about a woman who committed adultery: "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone."

Religious fanatics do not follow the words of Jesus, they cherry-pick bits and pieces to hurt people. Take MAGA for example. They oppose gay marriage "because the Bible says" but worship (idolatry) a greedy billionaire who is a rapist and paedophile, never prays or goes to church, never gives to the poor unless it’s for a stunt, etc. Or the Russian Orthodox Church perhaps, they praise Vladimir Putin despite his genocidal war in Ukraine, which goes against the Sixth Commandment ("thou shall not kill").

Religion is about interpretation, yes. But fanatics completely ignore parts while literally taking others.
 
Muz said:
That fucking pig needs to be shot out of a cannon. First it was Asians, then Muslims, then Africans and now she's pivoted back to Muslims again.

She has the ugliest, blackest heart in Australia.
Click to expand...
She does it for attention. Yes sometimes she has a point on stuff like immigration being too high or that radicalism and terrorism are problems. But like all minor parties, she doesn’t actually have proper plans.

It’s similar in the US. For example I remember scrolling through Insta reels and seeing a video from this Colombian chick (I think her name was Valentina, she was born in Colombia and speaks English with a thick Colombian accent) running for a seat in Austin, Texas for the Republicans talking about wanting to put “America first”, “release the Epstein files” and to stop Muslim immigration (of course MAGA thinks running a hard-right Trumpist in a seat in a majorly Democrat city will work). But how are you gonna do those things and what are your other plans? I looked through her Insta and there was nothing, just stunts of her saying “god bless America” and shit (there was also one of her going into an LGBT-friendly church and deliberately getting kicked out for harassing the pastors for supporting gay marriage). How does she think this will help people in Austin buy bread and milk or pay their bills and taxes?

Another example: former British Conservative PM Boris Johnson said his main issue with Reform (Nigel Farage’s party and the one currently leading in the polls, though the UK doesn’t have to vote again until at most 2029; basically the British version of One Nation with Nigel Farage as the British Pauline Hanson) is they have no policies. They may have ideas, but they have no plan and thus it won’t work out well. One Nation are heavily basing their policies off Reform’s due to the electorate being at its most fiercely anti-Donald Trump point ever (so associating with him would be unpopular), with Reform in turn being based on other European right-wing populist parties such as Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Germany, Brothers of Italy (FdI) in Italy, the National Rally (RN) in France, Vox in Spain, etc for the same reason (plus those parties except Vox have had more success: the RN is a relatively popular party in France, AfD is now the second biggest party in Germany (and holds every seat in former East Germany outside Berlin) and FdI currently governs Italy).

If you listen to Coalition, independent, teal or even Labor members they actually at least try to outline their policies. Minor parties don’t seem to do this, they seem to rely on “oh this is popular, let’s do this.” You can be against illegal/mass immigration and radicalism/terrorism and still A. have policies and B. be a decent human being.
 
Last edited:
HonestSpursFan said:
She does it for attention. Yes sometimes she has a point on stuff like immigration being too high or that radicalism and terrorism are problems. But like all minor parties, she doesn’t actually have proper plans.

It’s similar in the US. For example I remember scrolling through Insta reels and seeing a video from this Colombian chick (I think her name was Valentina, she was born in Colombia and speaks English with a thick Colombian accent) running for a seat in Austin, Texas for the Republicans talking about wanting to put “America first”, “release the Epstein files” and to stop Muslim immigration (of course MAGA thinks running a hard-right Trumpist in a seat in a majorly Democrat city will work). But how are you gonna do those things and what are your other plans? I looked through her Insta and there was nothing, just stunts of her saying “god bless America” and shit (there was also one of her going into an LGBT-friendly church and deliberately getting kicked out for harassing the pastors for supporting gay marriage). How does she think this will help people in Austin buy bread and milk or pay their bills and taxes?

Another example: former British Conservative PM Boris Johnson said his main issue with Reform (Nigel Farage’s party and the one currently leading in the polls, though the UK doesn’t have to vote again until at most 2029; basically the British version of One Nation with Nigel Farage as the British Pauline Hanson) is they have no policies. They may have ideas, but they have no plan and thus it won’t work out well. One Nation are heavily basing their policies off Reform’s due to the electorate being at its most fiercely anti-Donald Trump point ever (so associating with him would be unpopular), with Reform in turn being based on other European right-wing populist parties such as Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Germany, Brothers of Italy (FdI) in Italy, the National Rally (RN) in France, Vox in Spain, etc for the same reason (plus those parties except Vox have had more success: the RN is a relatively popular party in France, AfD is now the second biggest party in Germany (and holds every seat in former East Germany outside Berlin) and FdI currently governs Italy).

If you listen to Coalition, independent, teal or even Labor members they actually at least try to outline their policies. Minor parties don’t seem to do this, they seem to rely on “oh this is popular, let’s do this.” You can be against illegal/mass immigration and radicalism/terrorism and still A. have policies and B. be a decent human being.
Click to expand...
I think you ought to read some of those parties' plans. The Afd has it all outlined in over 100 pages. While it may be disagreed with, it's all there. A lot of the language used by small parties isn't too dissimilar to mainstream parties in the 90s. You look back at past posters in Europe at least and they stated they'd be in control of who enters the country.

I think small parties being described as not having a plan is an establishment retort from politics and the media because they fear losing their position. I guess, who wouldn't fear losing out?

The German public broadcaster goes hard against its critics as it fears losing the gravy train while supporting those who bang on about independent media.

The German Greens are bumbling fools who needed one election cycle to pour petrol on the fire and stuff up across the board. The new government, also shit, have just overturned the unfeasible energy policies that were introduced. It'll be met halfway in the next cycle I suspect.

Besides, the big parties certainly haven't had clever policies to solve the complicated problems. Simple solutions to complicated problems. Where did those problems come from though?
 
HonestSpursFan said:
To be fair, while the majority of Muslims don’t eat pork or drink alcohol, a lot of the ones in Albania and the former Yugoslavia do. Albania did a health study back in 2017 and found that most Albanian men drank alcohol and were not circumcised. Bektashi (a local branch of Islam) were quite unlikely to be circumcised or sober, but less than half of other Muslims were as well. Not sure about other parts of the world but at the Socceroos vs Indonesia game a lot of the Indonesians were going to the bar (Indonesia is majority Muslim but has specific places that aren’t, like Bali is Hindu and some other islands are Christian).

I think part of this is European secularism (just like how many if not most European Christians don’t go to church every week anymore or aren’t baptised), but also communism banned organised religion in the Eastern Bloc (modern-day China, which is still communist, recognises five religions: Buddhism, Catholicism, Islam and Protestantism, with other religions often being oppressed or not commonly practised). However, even if not practised, culturally people will still call themselves part of a religion (that part of the world is quite sectarian, with Catholics in Croatia, Muslims in Albania and Kosovo, and Orthodox in Serbia (plus all three in Bosnia) having fought some wars against each other before and many still hold grudges, e.g Serbia still claims sovereignty over Kosovo and Croatia vs Serbia or Albania vs Serbia matches in football cause a lot of fights).

TL;DR: Balkan Muslims do, other Muslims don’t. The reason: secularism and communism.
Click to expand...
Many muslim from the Eastern Bloc engaged in actions considered unislamic to protect themselves from persecution. These actions stayed with them for generations. The actions would be considered as not Islamic. Islam also says people are not lost to the religion until they actually fully leave it. Again, it is not the individual, but the action.

Beretta was saying that the only good Muslims are those who eat pork and drink alcohol. Implication is that the Muslims who don't are not good Muslims. Your mention of the Indonesian fans, they may not have been drinking. I've been to bars with my friends, but I don't drink.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top