544
submitted 4 months ago by Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] BackOnMyBS@lemmy.autism.place 87 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Almost there! Just one more step left on the Gay Agenda:

✔️ look cute

✔️ be gay

✔️ hang out with friends

✔️ make memes

✔️ trick wise protectors of heterosexuality into accepting gay animals

◻️ be treated with decency by society

[-] flicker@lemmy.world 66 points 4 months ago

I call bullshit.

I do not see brunch anywhere on that list.

[-] Facebones@reddthat.com 8 points 4 months ago

What if I'm straight and all about some brunch?

[-] msage@programming.dev 10 points 4 months ago

I may have some news for you...

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] kenkenken@sh.itjust.works 51 points 4 months ago

Animal sexual behavior is under-reported in general, I think. Do not forget to report!

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 75 points 4 months ago

Probably because a lot of it is real fucked up, and makes people uncomfortable.

Like female bedbugs not having vaginas and so males have a sharp penis and literally stab the females with it often resulting in death of the female, because it's literally just an open wound.

Further, male angler fish only exist to find the female, touch her, get stuck to her, and get absorbed by her body until all that's left is the testes, now absorbed by and part of the female. The female can hold multiple testes of multiple males inside of her and choose to self-impregnate whenever she chooses.

Don't even get me started on felines and spiny penises so the female can't escape once the male has entered.

Like a huge amount of animal sex is rape.

Yeah I don't spend my time reporting it because all it does is remind me how lucky I am to be human and be able to have a consensual, loving relationship with another human.

[-] growsomethinggood@reddthat.com 52 points 4 months ago

I think the point is, human discomfort shouldn't play a role in scientific reporting. Humans have projected a lot of human social elements (sex and gender roles, etc) onto animals and called it science, but it's not objective. If we are self censoring, we can't effectively share knowledge with others and we might miss important things down the line.

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 29 points 4 months ago

If cat cock upsets you, don’t look up duck dick.

[-] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 19 points 4 months ago

i mean they could look up Echidna Dick

[-] artichokecustard@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

try hyena clit instead

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

Like a huge amount of animal sex is rape.

Pretty much all duck sex. Sometimes males will gang rape a female to death.

[-] Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 4 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Drusas@kbin.run 12 points 4 months ago

Like a huge amount of animal sex is rape.

The documentary on koalas I watched 2-3 decades ago was kind of traumatizing.

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 months ago

Like a huge amount of animal sex is rape.

Female garter snakes at the Narcisse Snake Dens in Manitoba would agree.

[-] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Like female bedbugs not having vaginas and so males have a sharp penis and literally stab the females with it often resulting in death of the female, because it’s literally just an open wound.

Is it bad that part of me is like "GOOD!" because, "fuck bed bugs!"?

[-] Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 4 months ago

fuck bed bugs!

You can't. They don't have vaginas.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] morphballganon@lemmy.world 37 points 4 months ago

The very idea of sexuality being divisible into distinct types is a uniquely human construct.

Animals don't think "I'm gonna go find another dude to have gay sex with," they just get the urge and act on it with whoever looks good nearby.

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] tb_@lemmy.world 28 points 4 months ago
[-] Diurnambule@jlai.lu 10 points 4 months ago

sO yOuR ArE SaYiNg HeTeRoSeXuAlItY iS nOt NaTuRAl ?! /s

[-] secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world 26 points 4 months ago

People who publish scientific articles should be forced to declare their religious views at the top of the article so that if anything is listed other than "none" then it can just be automatically discarded unless it's replicated by a non-religious scientist. Religion just ruins everything, like running a computer with Windows.

[-] Revonult@lemmy.world 43 points 4 months ago

I don't consider myself as religious, but this is just such a bad take.

I too dislike religion, but judging people based on their beliefs and discrediting their views because of it is exactly the problem.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago

I think understanding one's own biases is not a problem. Ethics in science is currently a problem. Political lobbying affiliations and funding sources for studies should really be prominently displayed as well.

[-] secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

I disagree. For hundreds of years, illogical religious beliefs have biased science. People should have a right to know if scientists have religious beliefs so they can be weary of their agendas affecting the results. Many religious beliefs are obviously illogical and make no sense and if a scientist believes them, it does illuminate the likelihood of the accuracy of their results.

For many years "scientists" said homosexuality was caused by "mental illness" and then suddenly they decided it's not. There were entire scientific programs devoted to racist beliefs that were psuedoscientific and often impacted by religious views justifying racism. Of course religion biases science and is a problem in having unbiased research!

I don't think we should outlaw religious people from practicing science, but their views should at least be known so people can scrutinize their work more closely.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

Question… do you realize how fascist this sounds?

You might mean well, but all you’re doing is changing who’s being discriminated against.

Not cool.

load more comments (20 replies)
[-] Revonult@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

What field would be the cut off? Is religion going to influence how a metallurgist analyzes microstructure? How about how a chemist developing new polymers? Who gets to decide? If a scientist allows their religion, or any external influence, to influence their work they are a bad scientist. Which is why we have peer review and reproducible results. There is no need to label anyone. If their work is shit there is mechanisms to correct it, which we are seeing in the article.

People's relationship with religion is not up to you, just how the opinions of the religious shouldn't get to dictate the lives LGBT+. They might be in it for community and don't belive the "fantasy". If an individual is spouting hate that is one thing, but judging individuals by their religion is the same persecution the religious zelots dish out.

Edit: some wording

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] maniel@sopuli.xyz 21 points 4 months ago

It's not about religion, haters will be haters, religion is just a tool haters use to prop up their views

[-] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

There's a mutualism there. Assholes promote religion as a way to get status and impunity. Religion promotes assholes because they're useful in manipulating populations raised to be asshole-like.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 20 points 4 months ago

They are already supposed to declare conflicts of interest.

[-] Poach@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

I don't think most people would consider their religion a conflict of interest. I would agree that it is for scientific research, and probably a whole lot of other things...

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 4 months ago

You have an ideological viewpoint that says that all people with a certain identity are wrong. And you present yourself as moral.

You sound like a fundamentalist, to me.

[-] BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

I interpreted it as "You hold beliefs that directly contradict the work you're performing, therefore, you have a bias that needs to be shown wasn't a factor in your research by having your research successfully replicated by those who do not share your bias."

A Crusade was never launched on behalf of science, people were never burned at the stake because of science, babies are not still being mutilated at birth against their will (circumcision or genital mutilation of young girls) because of science, and AIDs was not spread unchecked across the world due to government's lack of science.

It's religion, it ruins literally everything, especially science.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 7 points 4 months ago

I don't read it as saying they're wrong. I read it as saying it's unreliable. If someone has a cacaine addiction, I'm not going to trust them to hold on to some crack and not use it. If they can prove themselves reliable then they may be trusted.

I don't think I agree with this person's opinion, but it's not what you said it was.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago

I'm as atheist as atheist gets, and I completely disagree with this, and it honestly smacks of edgy teen r/atheism. Just because you're religious doesn't mean you'd engage in that kind of dishonesty. Some of the greatest scientific discoveries in human history were made by religious people.

Also:

"Religion just ruins everything, like running a computer with Windows." "@secretlyaddictedtolinux"

Username absolutely does NOT check out, lol

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] lemmie689@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 4 months ago

I had a dog that would hump stuffed animals, didn't matter what kind of stuffed animal. Humans live by our culture, which is highly symbolic learned behaviour.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

I'm guessing most animal behaviorists have priorities other than watching who is fucking whom. Unless we're talking long-term bonding pairs, which are much easier to observe, but those are not the norm in the animal kingdom.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] CainTheLongshot@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

The animal roommate behavior reports, however, are abundant!

[-] slurpeesoforion@startrek.website 15 points 4 months ago

They're just really great friends.
Their husbands died in the war.

[-] jaybone@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

The librulz are hiding the gay frogs!!!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
544 points (94.7% liked)

News

23265 readers
3010 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS