transgender BS

[Xavier_Onassis]

Homosexuality is bad only in the sense that the homosexual as less likely to pass on his genes to the future generations, (though not completely so, as many gay people have children even though they do not enjoy heterosexual sex much), but not bad for the community, as gay people clearly serve a purpose in the urban communities in which they live.

We evolved to be tree and cave dwellers and then hunter-gatherers. Life on farms is definitely not the only thing humans can evolve to be. We humans are obviously the most sophisticated inhabitants of this planet, and urban life clearly helps us reach a higher level. I don't think that the goal of the human race is to consist of a scattered numbers of Amish-like farm communities.

[Plane]

  City life includes stresses that lead to increased and even exaggerated criminality. Citys also divorce people from reality as farm or nomadic life wed one to nature instead.

Homosexuality is bad only in the sense that the homosexual as less likely to pass on his genes to the future generations,....

In terms of Evolution , what is worse? Apoptosis?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Yeah, let's all move back to the country and raise chickens. You go first, CU4.

I lived on a Maryland Tobacco farm for a year while teaching in Maryland. It was fun driving to work in the snow, dodging Amish buggies.

[sirs]

Evolution doesn't beget we live in urban jungles.....nor is it the normalization of abhorent behavior.  The "evolution" of this country is one of freedom....freedom to chose to live where we want, while not being a subservent to those who chose to act and live elsewhere

[Xavier_Onassis]

We are not free to live where we want, unless we are independently wealthy. The 98% that are not must live where we can find work.
Most people are in the cities, and therefore most work is in the cities.

Economics, not evolution tells us where we must live. Evolution helps us adapt rather slowly, to new surroundings. Andeans are barrel-chestedm Africans do not sunburn painfully. That sort of thing.

Not sure what "urban jungle" means. Surrounded by darkies? Indians? Mexicans?
No one on my block but me was born in the US. But I do not consider my 75 X125 ft lot and small detached house to be part if an "urban jungle".

[sirs]

We are not free to live where we want

Not talking "universal"...like I want to live in the White House.  The point is if we want to live in a urban jungle, we can.  If we want to live in an rural area, we can.  Nothing prevetns that outside of specific locations.  So no, you don't have to be independing wealthy.  You have the freedom in this country to do what you want where you want.  There's always compromise involved...as in if you want to live ina spcific place, you may have to work to earn extra money.  If you are more interested in a specifc job, then one will have to be more compromising on where they want to live.

People leave the cities with barely 5 dollars to their name, to try and find a better life for themselves and/or family.  No one is condemned to live in an urban jungle

Not sure what "urban jungle" means. Surrounded by darkies? Indians? Mexicans?

You're such an ass.  Leave it to you to inject race into an issue that had nothing to do with race.  Urban jungle is specific to the density of a population, within a city.  The greater the density REGARDLESS OF RACE, the greater an urban jungle it becomes.  NYCity, Detroit, Los Angeles are all Urban Jungles

[Xavier_Onassis]

So a building with over 500 people living in it on Park Avenue is an "Urban Jungle" to you?

You are free to leave with barely $5 and seek your fortune. But you will get hungry in many placwes and not even a Mckey D's to sell you a burger. You will have to survive by eating roots and grubs.

Some recipes might be helpful.

[sirs]

Did I say building??  I think not.  I said CITY.  Point remains unrefuted however, no one is condemned to stay in one 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Okay, twenty buildings with  10000 people in them.

That sounds like my ex's place at Century Village. It does not look like an Urban jungle.

[sirs]

Still stuck on buildings are you.  Let me know when you expect to get back to the issue of cities, since that's the urban jungle I keep referring to

Here's a hint.....you don't get to make up how I define terms

[Christians4LessGvt]

Yeah, let's all move back to the country and raise chickens. You go first, CU4.

Not sure why you addressed this comment towards me...
i love the country
i am now spending almost every weekend out in the country
but I also like the big city
i think i'd go nuts out in the country full time
even if ya love ice cream sundaes...ya might not want one every day...ya know?
so i strike a balance....
work, concerts, sporting events, shopping, church, family in the big city
woodpeckers, ATV's, fishing poles, bonfires, walks in the woods in the country
variety is the spice of life XO!

[Christians4LessGvt]

[Xavier_Onassis]

sirs likes the ideas of urban jungles without buildings. For reasons known only to him, he does not like the idea of urban jungles with buildings.
I am okay the the country, but it would be a long commute to buy groceries.
In my neighborhood, there are small burrowing owls that hoot all day. I have never seen one.

[Plane]

So a building with over 500 people living in it on Park Avenue is an "Urban Jungle" to you?

I lived on a thirty million dollar ship for a long time , there were thirty of us racked in the same berth and ours was not the big one.

Officers lived mostly two to a stateroom, the most senior officers had space exclusively their own , but even the Captains cabin would be a pretty small apartment in a city.

This was like living in a 25000 horsepower vehicle , constantly hissing and vibrating.

Some things about the Navy I just don't miss. Crowding for certain.

Yes , I would not like an opulent but crowded habitat either.

 

[sirs]

sirs likes the ideas of urban jungles without buildings.

and xo continues to make up nonsense that sirs never said, or even implied......for reasons known only to him.  Go figure