Hacker News Reader

Comment by Tichy | Hacker News Reader

I wish he would provide any citations for that claim.

Wonder if he is aware that men die on average ten years earlier than women? Or that the human population is descendant from twice as many women as men, meaning men are much less likely to reproduce? (http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anyt... )

I think the latter is a pretty damning point, given that reproducing is pretty important to the human condition. So perhaps there are more video games that cater to male needs, but that doesn't help much with the stuff that matters, like having children.

I am not even sure what exactly he refers to by easy mode. What was the easy mode I got that women don't get?

View on HN

>I think the latter is a pretty damning point, given that reproducing is pretty important to the human condition.

Not according to 21th century hip ideology. You're insulting all LGBT guys by saying that.

Why am I insulting LGBT guys/gals? Everybody is free to choose, but it is still a fact that reproduction (or rather, having kids) is important for a lot of people. Even some LGBT people try to adopt children afaik.

Also without reproduction nobody would be here.

>Also without reproduction nobody would be here.

I know that, I was being sarcastic towards the attitude that sees things that formed the bases of society since ever was one, like reproduction, are viewed as "optional" or "sexist" nowadays, because we should be "above that".

Of course we only get to have the privilege of saving that (and still have a human population on the planet) due to overpopulation in other parts of the world, and we still get declining and aging population our own countries for that.

That's also why we get to have our LGBT privilege. In the large scheme of things, a mostly LGBT society would mean a dead society, because of no reproduction.

Sarcastic flamebaiting isn't appropriate for HN. Your previous post was problematic.

Why do you think LGBT can't reproduce? I know someone who is literally the spawn of a lesbian with a turkey baster.

>Why do you think LGBT can't reproduce?

Well, B (and maybe T's) can.

But LG cannot by definition, except if they momentarily act like non LG's by reproducing with other partners against their own sexual preferences.

And that if they _do_ have the will to reproduce, considering that in primates in nature it's a strictly heterosexual deal (and in fact, the male/female sexes were evolved as a means to that very end).

In addition, for several prominent LG thinkers, "gay marriage" and "having a baby" (surrogates, etc), is the losing proposition of adopting/mimicking the dominant paradigm. Essentially it's the opposite of feminism.

I don't have any interest in having kids, but I really don't think that wanting artificial insemination means that you're secretly heterosexual.

in nature it's a strictly heterosexual deal

It's actually quite natural for other orientations as well:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/05/madrid-zoos-g...

I can see this happening in nature if maybe both of the original parents got killed off or something. The presence of homo-penguins means that the offspring might get rescued and safely reared by the happy couple instead of perishing.

They can adopt. There are so many foster kids who need a good home. :(

Reply on news.ycombinator.com