Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: male
Age: 23
Date Signed Up:10/03/2010
Comment Ranking:#11179
Highest Content Rank:#2435
Highest Comment Rank:#3692
Content Thumbs: 3373 total,  4369 ,  996
Comment Thumbs: 5404 total,  6518 ,  1114
Content Level Progress: 68.99% (69/100)
Level 132 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 133 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 47% (47/100)
Level 249 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 250 Comments: Contaminated Win
Content Views:185566
Times Content Favorited:150 times
Total Comments Made:2217
FJ Points:4182

latest user's comments

#6 - ****, forgot about that whole thing I liked it …  [+] (1 reply) 10/25/2015 on D O G G O S 2 +1
#7 - denonymous (10/25/2015) [-]
#6 - **Tsquared used "*roll 1, 1-100*"** **Tsquared rolls 097**  [+] (1 reply) 10/24/2015 on Naughty Perils +1
User avatar
#7 - Tsquared (10/24/2015) [-]
**Tsquared used "*roll 1, 1-100*"**
**Tsquared rolls 026**
#14 - green 10/19/2015 on Favorite Color 0
#13 - I'm pretty sure the modern definition of a mental disorder spe…  [+] (14 replies) 10/06/2015 on too gay 4 work +6
User avatar
#14 - obviousxplains (10/06/2015) [-]
if you cant procreate you have no reason to live... technically. obviously there are people who have been socialized to not want kids but we've yet to find any reason for life other than making and raising kids
#34 - robuntu (10/07/2015) [-]
That's ridiculous as evidenced by all of the sterile people who choose to live. You can't just DECLARE the purpose of life. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

There are tons of post-menopausal women living on the planet. They can't reproduce anymore. Tons of people choose not to produce. Lots of people are infertile and unable to reproduce. There are tons and tons and tons of pursuits people have that don't relate to having children.

First world countries are experiencing declining birth rates. This is further evidence that the point of life is not to reproduce. The people with the most means and ability to do so, are actively choosing not to, or to do so at a rate lower than people in 3rd world conditions.

User avatar
#35 - obviousxplains (10/07/2015) [-]
are you actually retarded?

im talking from a natural stance where evolution guides the way a species works of course people who cant have kids still have reasons to live, but thats because we're sentient. gtfo with your idiocy
#36 - robuntu (10/07/2015) [-]
I can only go off what you type. If you type retarded shit, I can't help it. You can't claim the only purpose of life is X, and then get upset when I ask you to explain why you think it is X.

YOU SAID 'if you cant procreate you have no reason to live...'

Now, if you want to back up and change your stance, that's fine. But I don't know you. All I know is what you say. That's what you said. That's all I can go off.
User avatar
#38 - obviousxplains (10/07/2015) [-]
i specifically added "technically" after that statement, denoting that i meant it at the most basic level and was not taking other factors (that i implied were obvious with my use of the eye) into account
#40 - robuntu (10/07/2015) [-]
'you're literally acting contrary to an animals one purpose--reproduce '

There were no eyes that time.....

It seems even you think the things that you are saying don't make sense?
User avatar
#42 - obviousxplains (10/07/2015) [-]
an animals 1 purpose is to reproduce and raise children
some animals are born without legs and die--which is good because thats an undesirable trait
some animals are born gay and dont reproduce because theyre gay, which is good because thats an undesirable trait.

LIFE is about reproduction. everything any animal has ever done is for the purpose of reproduction OR is a flaw

#45 - robuntu (10/07/2015) [-]
You've gone from 'the one purpose is to procreate' (in your earlier post). Now you've added 'and raise children'. Now we've got *two* purposes. And those purposes are disjointed.

Then, after defining the purpose of life as production and raising children, you conclude that LIFE is about reproduction again. What happened to raising children? It's like you can't even keep up with yourself here.

If you want to argue that homosexuality is an undesirable trait, you need to explain why after 7 million years of evolution we still have homosexuals. And it's not just humans, it's observed all over the animal kingdom. You *also* need to explain away scientific studies that demonstrate an evolutionary advantage to homosexuals. I've already linked to one, but I'll past it again:

And another

studies led by Andrea Camperio Ciani at the University of Padova in Italy and others have found that mothers and maternal aunts of gay men tend to have significantly more offspring than the maternal relatives of straight men. The results show strong support for the "balancing selection hypothesis," which is fast becoming the accepted theory of the genetic basis of male homosexuality.

I'm sure the scientists involved in both studies will be happy to hear from you; you can explain to them why they are wrong. I'm sure you have lots of evidence to support your claim, despite not posting any of it....

User avatar
#49 - obviousxplains (10/07/2015) [-]
*eye twitch*
i think your idiocy is flying through the internet and affecting everyone here

procreation involves raising children. the two things are not separate. men are competitive in order to get a woman, have sex drives to get her pregnant, and are physically strong to protect her and their offspring. making and raising and protecting and teaching children is lifes purpose.
and thats all still 1 thing under the umbrella of having kids--but if you really REALLY have so little of an argument that your going to point out that i summarized all of that simply by saying "procreation" then fine. youre right in that i should have read the room, realized i was dealing with retards, and spelled out more clearly what i obviously meant.
im obviousxplains after all.

as for the 7 million years thing, i already addressed that, but seeing as we've already concluded your reading skills arent very good then i guess ill restate it here:
many undesirable traits still exist. its a misconception that ALL undesirable traits disappear over time. given infinite time, of course, we would evolve all of them out, but if natural selection worked perfectly then we wouldnt have bipolar disorder, alcoholism, autism, etc. we havent found a gay gene either, meaning we dont know how its passed. its possible that it can exist for a long time before manifesting as a gay person, meaning that heterosexuals can pass it along (obviously, as a gay person can have straight parents)
bisexuals also exist.
for humans in particular, gay people have been forced to have children historically because homosexuality was not accepted, and today they use sperm to have 'real' children of their own.

i refuse to click any links to IFLscience or the huffingtonpost and if you knew anything about gamergate or even just common internet knowledge youd know
1. dont give them traffic
2. dont believe a word they say.
so now i know i must be dealing with a retard.

Heres some quotes from BBC, which im sure we can all agree is atleast unbiased:

"This is a paradox from an evolutionary perspective," says Paul Vasey from the University of Lethbridge in Canada. "How can a trait like male homosexuality, which has a genetic component, persist over evolutionary time if the individuals that carry the genes associated with that trait are not reproducing?"
Scientists don't know the answer to this Darwinian puzzle, but there are several theories. It's possible that different mechanisms may be at work in different people. Most of the theories relate to research on male homosexuality. The evolution of lesbianism is relatively understudied - it may work in a similar way or be completely different."

"Another way a "gay allele" might be able to compensate for a reproductive deficit is by having the converse effect in the opposite sex. For example, an allele which makes the bearer attracted to men has an obvious reproductive advantage to women. If it appears in a man's genetic code it will code for same-sex attraction, but so long as this happens rarely the allele still has a net evolutionary benefit.
There is some evidence for this second theory. Andrea Camperio-Ciani, at the University of Padova in Italy, found that maternal female relatives of gay men have more children than maternal female relatives of straight men. The implication is that there is an unknown mechanism in the X chromosome of men's genetic code which helps women in the family have more babies, but can lead to homosexuality in men. These results haven't been replicated in some ethnic groups - but that doesn't mean they are wrong with regards to the Italian population in Camperio-Ciani's study."

if youd read what you literally quoted yourself, you idiot, youd know that its saying that gay men exist because of a SIDE EFFECT of a trait that would give women more children, NOT THE INTENDED EFFECT. over time it would evolve to only have the positive trait, if possible.

User avatar
#51 - obviousxplains (10/07/2015) [-]
i ran out of characters proving you wrong, and i wanted to add this summary:

animals are meant to reproduce and help offspring reproduce. that is the point of life
humans are animals, but are also sentient. we can find meaning in life other than bearing children but are never the less PROGRAMMED to have children
thus homosexuality is a bug in the program
one theory is that homosexuality is a side effect of a trait to make women more appealing, in which case it is still a flaw, an abnormality,
a disorder, if you will
but as i stated above, i now agree that abnormality is a better word.
#50 - robuntu (10/07/2015) [-]
TL;DR - Two studies that contradict my opinion are on websites I don't like, thus, I ignore them!


User avatar
#56 - obviousxplains (10/07/2015) [-]
if you look about 3 inches above your post, youll see that i call you an idiot for using a quote that actually serves my argument as evidence for yours.
i was able to do this because i found that quote on an unbias site reporting about the same study
so clearly i read the study, and clearly you didnt read my post.
youve lost all credibility m8. ive disprvoed your points and youve basically admitted to not reading what im saying, which has been my argument the whole time.
User avatar
#53 - obviousxplains (10/07/2015) [-]
i found the same study on bbc and addressed it perfectly.

i was joking about the "you cant read" thing but maybe you cant...
User avatar
#25 - charizarddad (10/06/2015) [-]
sounds kinda philosophical. i think you could find a better argument than reproduction or procreation. also yeah, id probably disagree with mental disorder due to >>#13 and >>#21 but its definitely weird, and not normal.
#19 - fav character? mine's steroids, because nothing says fun l…  [+] (1 reply) 10/05/2015 on Wallpaper dump 0
User avatar
#21 - xeviouss (10/05/2015) [-]
Probably y.v. because i love rate of fire
#72 - Picture 09/26/2015 on Long but worth it +1