Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 28, 2016, at 4:06 PM, robert wood <wood0257 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's been a while since I have made any comments here, but I just wanted to
> state that I agree with Carrol, Brian, and Eric. Keep this sort of
> transphobic nonsense of the list. Robert Wood
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 7:29 AM, Lenin's Tomb <leninstombblog at googlemail.com
>> wrote:
>
>> Really, I unsubscribed from LBO Talk some time ago, but I’m still getting
>> Charles Brown’s bigoted bullshit. Please take it away.
>>
>>> On 28 Apr 2016, at 14:53, Charles Brown <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For our species to continue surviving, the human line could not lose its
>> sexual instinct until it was possible for reproduction to be relatively
>> assured without it. And this was only possible after humans had first found
>> a benefit in producing offspring (realizing that children could provide
>> care and protection in old age), and then discovered what caused
>> reproduction (linking heterosexual intercourse to it). The tremendous
>> insight required for both discoveries was only made possible by a
>> sufficiently high intelligence level.
>>> ///
>>>
>>> Human species never lost its Herero-sexual instinct.
>>>
>>> Nothing in either discovery the article mentions would cause selection
>> against hetero-sexual instinct (!). Lack of hetero-sexual instinct would
>> continue to have a much lower Darwinian fitness than having
>> heterosexual-sexual instinct , because those with Herero-sexual instinct
>> would have a much greater number of fertile sexual acts than those lacking
>> it. It is patent that Differential fertility between having and lacking
>> heterosexual instinct would be enormous .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On Apr 13, 2016, at 2:48 PM, magcomm <magcomm at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear All:
>>>>
>>>>> . . . for the secret of this approach has its unambiguous, decisive,
>> plain and undisguised expression in the relation of man to woman and in the
>> manner in which the direct and natural species-relationship is conceived.
>> The direct, natural, and necessary relation of person to person is the
>> relation of man to woman.
>>>>
>>>> Philosophy, poetry and (you forgot to add Charles) transphobic nonsense
>> (except to the new breed of toilet monitors who are emerging below the
>> Mason-Dixon line).
>>>>
>>>>> . . . humanity is essentially non-essential."
>>>>
>>>> Buddhist thinkers arrived at the same conclusion a few hundred years
>> prior. Correct then; correct now.
>>>>
>>>>> So, Foucault took license to erase the scientific fact of heterosexual
>> instinct from anthropology and the philosophy of human nature. Foul deed !
>> Anti-Marxist big lie !
>>>>
>>>> This article from the Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical
>> Association explains about the lack of sexual instinct. The author does
>> note that "the instinct requiring the largest compensating intelligence
>> level before it can be lost is the sexual instinct." I hope other list
>> members will join me in wishing Charles swift attainment of just such a
>> compensating intelligence level.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.humansexualevolution.com/index.htm
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>> ___________________________________
>>>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>> ___________________________________
>>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk