The study you cite on violence and LGBT relationships shows that homosexual males have the lowest rates of intimate partner violence. Gay men also consistently show very low violent crime rates, so it appears the correlation of violence and homosexuality only applies to lesbians. Based on the study you cited, it even shows that gay men report even lower rates of intimate partner violence than straight men do from their partners.
On homosexuality and pedophilia, Ray Blanchard conducted a study using phallometric data to determine if there is a higher rate of pedophilia among gay men and found no statistically significant difference. The higher rates of homosexuality among those caught and convicted of child abuse may be due to an increased risk of offending as opposed to any innate differences.
Finally, I think much of this article seems like a just-so story, and I find it hard to see how this is compatible with all the noticeable population-level biological differences we observe in gay people. We see not only differences in hormone levels between gay and straight people, but also differences in facial structure, with lesbians typically having more masculine facial features and gay men having more feminine facial features on average.
Perhaps it's my bias, but this is very reminiscent of socialization-based arguments for ADHD and BPD that were popular a few decades ago, which can draw on the myriad of correlations that intuitively could lead to ADHD and BPD, as people in both scenarios are consistently shown to have worse social environments and early childhood experiences. However, as time has gone on, room for social environmental effects has almost completely been destroyed for ADHD and is slowly, but surely, being diminished for BPD.
Overall, this is a very interesting read, but I think there is a reason why Freudian analysis has fallen by the wayside as our understanding of biology has evolved.
More masculine features in female lesbians and more feminine features in male homosexuals is more reason why they experience shame over their gender. This gender deficit can be made whole through homosexual reenactment. It is a maladaptive response to trauma. This maladaptive response to trauma can be healed.
Are you saying my piss scat animal-cock hentai anal blowjob race-mixing transgender cum porn fetish is indicative of other underlying or related mental disturbances and traumas????? It’s just a coincidence that I also happen to have BPD, anxiety, depression, OCD, bi-polar disorder, and had an overly-aggressive male figure growing up you bigot 😡😡😡😡
In all seriousness I’ve sort of known this naturally for a while, or at least assumed it, I mean it’s no coincidence that girls you meet who are more promiscuous usually didn’t have the best dad, or everyone in the BDSM community has some sort of trauma, or children rebel by dating guys that their parents don’t like or transitioning to the opposite sex. Sexuality is very much influenced by issues, I wouldn’t say it requires full blown trauma, trauma feels like a very charged word, so I just say “issues” growing up. I am of the belief most fetishes are due to issues which developed into underlying things, for example if you like the humiliation aspect of crossdressing and public humiliation we can assume the underlying thing there is of course humiliation maybe which you fetishized the feeling of due to some shit happening in your past. Honestly in my opinion most fetishes are caused by underlying issues, and getting rid of the fetish isn’t the solution, it’s resolving that underlying issue which in turn should sort of be like destroying the scaffolding to all your fetishes built on the “complex.” Things like fetishes don’t just “pop up” randomly, so now where would a fetish that involves extreme humiliating things come up from? A. Nowhere unhealthy stop asking, or B. From some negative or multiple negative experiences and interactions and dynamics that played out which I internalized for whatever reason?
Another terrific post. I am by no means a Freudian, but I think Freud had a number of good insights that are worth preserving.
I am in full agreement with the principle of allowing adults to do what they want to do as long as they are not harming others, even if they are risking self-harm. At the same time, I am uncertain about applying this principle to teenagers, who occupy an ambiguous territory between childhood and adulthood. I would certainly not condone allowing a 6-year old to do dangerous things like inserting a pair of tweezers into an electrical outlet (something my younger brother once did. He survived, but what if he hadn't?). A gray area for me is adolescence, where people are no longer little children but not quite adults. Adolescence is normally confusing enough for so many teens. Should a dysphoric teen be allowed to choose life-altering hormonal or surgery to correct a self-diagnosed trans condition?
There is also a debate worth having about whether it is okay to not intervene in cases where an adult with a clear mental illness like major depression chooses to commit suicide.
"Christian Biblical Eden, which depicts all animals as primarily vegetarian, and only becoming carnivorous after the fall."
This isn't in the Bible, which is a domain of familiarity for me. This slip-up made me more attentive to how many of your claims were going uncited, and it became increasingly clear this material was just-so storytelling. I then came to the comments where I saw that you had misrepresented studies that *were* cited. So, this sucks.
Really enjoyed this, still thinking about it, it gives a new layer of thoughtful meaning to George Michael's "Father Figure" ...
also I wonder as evidence if it is worth considering homophobic and "brotherhood" correlations among Muslim and East Asian communities, if that is in anyway quantifiable--with unlimited resources I'd look at the quantity of terms of endearment for male friends (like saying "bro" or its equivalent) and counting the modes of touch and embrace that are not taboo (like men kissing a male friend or holding their hand) in those cultures, versus in American culture, and this correlation with strong, very strong, taboos against homosexuality.
Because it seems like at the cultural level, they do well with male socializing, or homosocializing, but perhaps at a cost. But with a larger appeal now to some men.
I'm thinking where culture embraces a high level of male sociality, they are also perhaps doing so at the expense of women's rights. Are they missing out on other things, too?
Wow I didn't know you wrote about this. This is a topic I have a lot of information about and hope to sort out what I have discovered from my own experience.
One thing you seem to keep discussing is conversion therapy and in a different article you believe that it revolves around electroconvulsive and NFT therapy. It is true that people have used those modalities to treat homosexuality unsuccessfully but the media has used those treatments to make everyone believe that is what conversion therapy is. The conversion therapy that is threatening to the LGBTQ+ political movement (to which I do not have any opinions on) is Reparative and Reintegrative Therapy. Joseph Nicolosi and his son Joseph Nicolosi Jr. respectively created those therapies to treat the fetishes that you describe. They used Freud's theories and created a therapy to treat unwanted sexual fetishes, specializing in male homosexuality.
If you want to discover what homosexuality really is read Shame and Attachment Loss by Joseph Nicolosi. This book will clarify and confirm many of the things you discovered. Homosexuality is a reparative drive as you said, a compulsion to act out and repair the losses experienced in a homosexuals youth. It is not purely based on homosocial failings.
Fetishes protect a person from having to grieve and accept the feelings of "annihilation-abandonment" trauma. To heal a fetish, a person must learn to grieve the times in their upbringing in which their mother, father, peers, siblings, adults made them feel annihilated and abandoned.
I'm sort of rambling at this point but Homosexuality is not genetic. It is a fetish. It has been "cured". If a homosexual resolves their shame and accepts the attachment loss they can reintegrate those memories and actualize their heterosexual potential and not longer feeling compelled to act on homosexual experiences.
The best example of this is in identical twins. There is no gay gene as identical twins are not always both homosexual. When one twin is homosexual and the other twin is heterosexual, the twin that is named after the father is always heterosexual. The boy named after their father will always to some degree attach to their father simply because the boy is named after him and the association with that name inevitably results in psychological attachment. The other twin experienced no attachment to the father and his homosexual. 2 homosexual twins neither will have the father's name, i've never seen it.
Lastly, gay men are obsessed with their mother because of the "oneitis" you mentioned. The homosexual boy is alienated from his brothers, his male peers, and his father. On top of that the mother does not see the boy for who he is and only gives him attention based on the conditions she likes. The mother of the homosexual male views the boy as a conditional something and does not properly mirror the boy's internal view of himself. The mother makes the boy feel special as they have a special relationship (she uses the boy to satisfy emotions her husband fails to provide typically) and he keeps clinging to the crumbs of their ambivalent relationship because he is so alienated from all of his other peers. He holds smoldering resentment towards his mother, every homosexual male does.
This wasn't well-written but main point is Conversion Therapy = Reparative Therapy = Shame Attachment and Loss by Jospeh Nicolosi which is a Freudian Psychoanayltic model to understand Homosexuality. Homosexuality is not genetic. Conversion therapy does exist but homosexuality can be treated without the intention of "conversion" but reintegrating trauma and healing the nervous system.
I love the first and middle part of this article. Very informative. However I have to add a few things towards the things you said at the end
On forcing homosexuals back into the closet: We have to establish the greater psychological structure of homosexualilty which is Perversion (in the lacanian sense) which comes from an insufficient "No-of-the-Father". The Symbolic Father's presence was not strong enough to separate the child's desire from the mothers Jouissance. (This is also why it's better if your children fully catch you having sex instead of barely catching you.) This causes the child to artificially prop up the "No-of-the-Father" by engaging in socially unacceptable behaviour including, but not limited to, homosexualilty. This means homosexuals, who fall under the perverts structure, want people to force them back into the closet as that's how they experience sexual satisfaction.
On Social Rejects becoming radicals: There's plenty of non-social rejects who became communists. Lenin, Fidel Castro, Mao ZeDong were lawyers and capable of swaying public opinion to their side. This statement would mean that an entire nation (Soviet union, Communist China, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan) were all social rejects. There is, without a doubt, a collective conscious aware of its exploitation and when ruling forces tip the scale too hard, the masses explode in destructive behaviors. You're statement is reductionist at best.
On liberalism correcting itself:
If that were true, than why does liberalism always resort to authoritarian methods to perpetuate itself? If we would let liberalism correct itself then it would not exist for long simply because authoritarianism is necessary to keep structures alive and thriving.
Meh, I was with you until you tried to explain normal heterosexual stuff by the same logic. Female heterosexual attraction patterns are better explained evolutionarily from the fact that she is the one that gets pregnant and all the risks and changes that happens as a result trying to max out survival of the kids into many generations in the future than just peer approval. I'd be up for explanations like yours for things that devitates from direct evolutionary use.
The problem with this (as with most theories of homosexuality) is that it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of sexuality. To put it briefly: sexuality is an arational, biological mating instinct that comes in two basic forms: active/aggressive/penetrative and passive/submissive/receptive. This isn't a difference of taste, it's a fundamental difference in orientation. Culture and environment can determine whether a straight man will prefer blondes or brunettes, but nothing can make him want to be penetrated by men, because it's an instinct he simply does not have. Exactly what form his basic instinct will take will be shaped by his environment, but the root instinct won't change.
And yes, masculine men who like feminine males in the same way straight men like women are in fact closer to straight men than to gay bottoms. This is something that was historically broadly recognized, and still is outside the West. (The modern Western view of this was shaped first by Christianity, which lumps together both parties to a homosexual act as equally sinful, and later by the modern leftist gay rights movement.)
The masculine men who like feminine men like men over women because they are attracted to the idea of "punishing the weak boy that was too weak to overcome their chaos making mother" (or father). They made a weak attachment to their father but suffered post-gender attachment trauma. They crave male affection still. They could resolve these feelings and become attracted to females if they reintegrate these traumatic experiences.
Not that fantasy specifically. But yes. I identified as a gay when I was 17 but because I'm an identical twin and he is heterosexual I thought it couldn't be genetic. I remember I watched a video by Richard Dawkins where he said homosexuality is something we should all respect but he made it clear it is not Darwinian. This lead me to discovering the truth of homosexuality and whether people believe me or not I did resolve my homosexuality. It is exactly as Freud says, it is truly amazing he figured this out in the 1920s.
You're being a little vague. Are you saying that you had a clear sexual preference for masculine men, but then you worked through personal issues and developed a strong preference for women? If the males you were attracted to were highly feminine, that's consistent with a primarily straight orientation. The labels we use for this aren't terribly precise.
I was only attracted to bodybuilder men, however my brain perceived hypermasculinity. Yes I after resolving the shame and understanding what this condition is I no longer can just appreciate a woman’s beauty non sexually but I am now aroused by women and not by men. Fetishes protect a child from feeling intense emotions and need to be corrected as they age especially if their identity and values don’t align with having a fetish (like homosexuality).
"Liberalism is a self-correcting system. If people make bad choices, they should be allowed to experience the full consequences of their choices without being paternalistically protected by the state."
It seems like many policies in the US are exactly to prevent people from experiencing their "full consequences" and often on the dime of people who completely disagree and protest the "bad choices".
The typical person ends up sexually attracted to the other sex, and not to their own. To the extent this is a physiological process, it is easy to imagine it reversing by accident.
Single celled organisms invented omnivores before herbivores, but one suspects that in mammals, there were herbivores before carnivores. Assuming that rodents came first.
"There are some cases where state intervention can be justified, not on the grounds of protecting the addict, but on the grounds of protecting people like you and me from roaming hordes of deranged zombies."
This is not a liberal belief, though. Liberals believe that the zombies should be allowed to attack people like you and me on sight, and that attempting to retaliate means imprisonment.
A few things to point out:
The study you cite on violence and LGBT relationships shows that homosexual males have the lowest rates of intimate partner violence. Gay men also consistently show very low violent crime rates, so it appears the correlation of violence and homosexuality only applies to lesbians. Based on the study you cited, it even shows that gay men report even lower rates of intimate partner violence than straight men do from their partners.
On homosexuality and pedophilia, Ray Blanchard conducted a study using phallometric data to determine if there is a higher rate of pedophilia among gay men and found no statistically significant difference. The higher rates of homosexuality among those caught and convicted of child abuse may be due to an increased risk of offending as opposed to any innate differences.
Finally, I think much of this article seems like a just-so story, and I find it hard to see how this is compatible with all the noticeable population-level biological differences we observe in gay people. We see not only differences in hormone levels between gay and straight people, but also differences in facial structure, with lesbians typically having more masculine facial features and gay men having more feminine facial features on average.
Perhaps it's my bias, but this is very reminiscent of socialization-based arguments for ADHD and BPD that were popular a few decades ago, which can draw on the myriad of correlations that intuitively could lead to ADHD and BPD, as people in both scenarios are consistently shown to have worse social environments and early childhood experiences. However, as time has gone on, room for social environmental effects has almost completely been destroyed for ADHD and is slowly, but surely, being diminished for BPD.
Overall, this is a very interesting read, but I think there is a reason why Freudian analysis has fallen by the wayside as our understanding of biology has evolved.
More masculine features in female lesbians and more feminine features in male homosexuals is more reason why they experience shame over their gender. This gender deficit can be made whole through homosexual reenactment. It is a maladaptive response to trauma. This maladaptive response to trauma can be healed.
Are you saying my piss scat animal-cock hentai anal blowjob race-mixing transgender cum porn fetish is indicative of other underlying or related mental disturbances and traumas????? It’s just a coincidence that I also happen to have BPD, anxiety, depression, OCD, bi-polar disorder, and had an overly-aggressive male figure growing up you bigot 😡😡😡😡
In all seriousness I’ve sort of known this naturally for a while, or at least assumed it, I mean it’s no coincidence that girls you meet who are more promiscuous usually didn’t have the best dad, or everyone in the BDSM community has some sort of trauma, or children rebel by dating guys that their parents don’t like or transitioning to the opposite sex. Sexuality is very much influenced by issues, I wouldn’t say it requires full blown trauma, trauma feels like a very charged word, so I just say “issues” growing up. I am of the belief most fetishes are due to issues which developed into underlying things, for example if you like the humiliation aspect of crossdressing and public humiliation we can assume the underlying thing there is of course humiliation maybe which you fetishized the feeling of due to some shit happening in your past. Honestly in my opinion most fetishes are caused by underlying issues, and getting rid of the fetish isn’t the solution, it’s resolving that underlying issue which in turn should sort of be like destroying the scaffolding to all your fetishes built on the “complex.” Things like fetishes don’t just “pop up” randomly, so now where would a fetish that involves extreme humiliating things come up from? A. Nowhere unhealthy stop asking, or B. From some negative or multiple negative experiences and interactions and dynamics that played out which I internalized for whatever reason?
Well done. Could probably add a paragraph or two about the causes of homophobia from the theses presented here.
Another terrific post. I am by no means a Freudian, but I think Freud had a number of good insights that are worth preserving.
I am in full agreement with the principle of allowing adults to do what they want to do as long as they are not harming others, even if they are risking self-harm. At the same time, I am uncertain about applying this principle to teenagers, who occupy an ambiguous territory between childhood and adulthood. I would certainly not condone allowing a 6-year old to do dangerous things like inserting a pair of tweezers into an electrical outlet (something my younger brother once did. He survived, but what if he hadn't?). A gray area for me is adolescence, where people are no longer little children but not quite adults. Adolescence is normally confusing enough for so many teens. Should a dysphoric teen be allowed to choose life-altering hormonal or surgery to correct a self-diagnosed trans condition?
There is also a debate worth having about whether it is okay to not intervene in cases where an adult with a clear mental illness like major depression chooses to commit suicide.
"Christian Biblical Eden, which depicts all animals as primarily vegetarian, and only becoming carnivorous after the fall."
This isn't in the Bible, which is a domain of familiarity for me. This slip-up made me more attentive to how many of your claims were going uncited, and it became increasingly clear this material was just-so storytelling. I then came to the comments where I saw that you had misrepresented studies that *were* cited. So, this sucks.
Really enjoyed this, still thinking about it, it gives a new layer of thoughtful meaning to George Michael's "Father Figure" ...
also I wonder as evidence if it is worth considering homophobic and "brotherhood" correlations among Muslim and East Asian communities, if that is in anyway quantifiable--with unlimited resources I'd look at the quantity of terms of endearment for male friends (like saying "bro" or its equivalent) and counting the modes of touch and embrace that are not taboo (like men kissing a male friend or holding their hand) in those cultures, versus in American culture, and this correlation with strong, very strong, taboos against homosexuality.
Because it seems like at the cultural level, they do well with male socializing, or homosocializing, but perhaps at a cost. But with a larger appeal now to some men.
I'm thinking where culture embraces a high level of male sociality, they are also perhaps doing so at the expense of women's rights. Are they missing out on other things, too?
Nothing in here here about attraction to robots. hmmm...
Need them Atomic Heart mommies fr fr.
Wow I didn't know you wrote about this. This is a topic I have a lot of information about and hope to sort out what I have discovered from my own experience.
One thing you seem to keep discussing is conversion therapy and in a different article you believe that it revolves around electroconvulsive and NFT therapy. It is true that people have used those modalities to treat homosexuality unsuccessfully but the media has used those treatments to make everyone believe that is what conversion therapy is. The conversion therapy that is threatening to the LGBTQ+ political movement (to which I do not have any opinions on) is Reparative and Reintegrative Therapy. Joseph Nicolosi and his son Joseph Nicolosi Jr. respectively created those therapies to treat the fetishes that you describe. They used Freud's theories and created a therapy to treat unwanted sexual fetishes, specializing in male homosexuality.
If you want to discover what homosexuality really is read Shame and Attachment Loss by Joseph Nicolosi. This book will clarify and confirm many of the things you discovered. Homosexuality is a reparative drive as you said, a compulsion to act out and repair the losses experienced in a homosexuals youth. It is not purely based on homosocial failings.
Fetishes protect a person from having to grieve and accept the feelings of "annihilation-abandonment" trauma. To heal a fetish, a person must learn to grieve the times in their upbringing in which their mother, father, peers, siblings, adults made them feel annihilated and abandoned.
I'm sort of rambling at this point but Homosexuality is not genetic. It is a fetish. It has been "cured". If a homosexual resolves their shame and accepts the attachment loss they can reintegrate those memories and actualize their heterosexual potential and not longer feeling compelled to act on homosexual experiences.
The best example of this is in identical twins. There is no gay gene as identical twins are not always both homosexual. When one twin is homosexual and the other twin is heterosexual, the twin that is named after the father is always heterosexual. The boy named after their father will always to some degree attach to their father simply because the boy is named after him and the association with that name inevitably results in psychological attachment. The other twin experienced no attachment to the father and his homosexual. 2 homosexual twins neither will have the father's name, i've never seen it.
Lastly, gay men are obsessed with their mother because of the "oneitis" you mentioned. The homosexual boy is alienated from his brothers, his male peers, and his father. On top of that the mother does not see the boy for who he is and only gives him attention based on the conditions she likes. The mother of the homosexual male views the boy as a conditional something and does not properly mirror the boy's internal view of himself. The mother makes the boy feel special as they have a special relationship (she uses the boy to satisfy emotions her husband fails to provide typically) and he keeps clinging to the crumbs of their ambivalent relationship because he is so alienated from all of his other peers. He holds smoldering resentment towards his mother, every homosexual male does.
This wasn't well-written but main point is Conversion Therapy = Reparative Therapy = Shame Attachment and Loss by Jospeh Nicolosi which is a Freudian Psychoanayltic model to understand Homosexuality. Homosexuality is not genetic. Conversion therapy does exist but homosexuality can be treated without the intention of "conversion" but reintegrating trauma and healing the nervous system.
I love the first and middle part of this article. Very informative. However I have to add a few things towards the things you said at the end
On forcing homosexuals back into the closet: We have to establish the greater psychological structure of homosexualilty which is Perversion (in the lacanian sense) which comes from an insufficient "No-of-the-Father". The Symbolic Father's presence was not strong enough to separate the child's desire from the mothers Jouissance. (This is also why it's better if your children fully catch you having sex instead of barely catching you.) This causes the child to artificially prop up the "No-of-the-Father" by engaging in socially unacceptable behaviour including, but not limited to, homosexualilty. This means homosexuals, who fall under the perverts structure, want people to force them back into the closet as that's how they experience sexual satisfaction.
On Social Rejects becoming radicals: There's plenty of non-social rejects who became communists. Lenin, Fidel Castro, Mao ZeDong were lawyers and capable of swaying public opinion to their side. This statement would mean that an entire nation (Soviet union, Communist China, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan) were all social rejects. There is, without a doubt, a collective conscious aware of its exploitation and when ruling forces tip the scale too hard, the masses explode in destructive behaviors. You're statement is reductionist at best.
On liberalism correcting itself:
If that were true, than why does liberalism always resort to authoritarian methods to perpetuate itself? If we would let liberalism correct itself then it would not exist for long simply because authoritarianism is necessary to keep structures alive and thriving.
Meh, I was with you until you tried to explain normal heterosexual stuff by the same logic. Female heterosexual attraction patterns are better explained evolutionarily from the fact that she is the one that gets pregnant and all the risks and changes that happens as a result trying to max out survival of the kids into many generations in the future than just peer approval. I'd be up for explanations like yours for things that devitates from direct evolutionary use.
The problem with this (as with most theories of homosexuality) is that it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of sexuality. To put it briefly: sexuality is an arational, biological mating instinct that comes in two basic forms: active/aggressive/penetrative and passive/submissive/receptive. This isn't a difference of taste, it's a fundamental difference in orientation. Culture and environment can determine whether a straight man will prefer blondes or brunettes, but nothing can make him want to be penetrated by men, because it's an instinct he simply does not have. Exactly what form his basic instinct will take will be shaped by his environment, but the root instinct won't change.
And yes, masculine men who like feminine males in the same way straight men like women are in fact closer to straight men than to gay bottoms. This is something that was historically broadly recognized, and still is outside the West. (The modern Western view of this was shaped first by Christianity, which lumps together both parties to a homosexual act as equally sinful, and later by the modern leftist gay rights movement.)
The masculine men who like feminine men like men over women because they are attracted to the idea of "punishing the weak boy that was too weak to overcome their chaos making mother" (or father). They made a weak attachment to their father but suffered post-gender attachment trauma. They crave male affection still. They could resolve these feelings and become attracted to females if they reintegrate these traumatic experiences.
Are you speaking from experience? Like, where are you getting this from?
Not that fantasy specifically. But yes. I identified as a gay when I was 17 but because I'm an identical twin and he is heterosexual I thought it couldn't be genetic. I remember I watched a video by Richard Dawkins where he said homosexuality is something we should all respect but he made it clear it is not Darwinian. This lead me to discovering the truth of homosexuality and whether people believe me or not I did resolve my homosexuality. It is exactly as Freud says, it is truly amazing he figured this out in the 1920s.
You're being a little vague. Are you saying that you had a clear sexual preference for masculine men, but then you worked through personal issues and developed a strong preference for women? If the males you were attracted to were highly feminine, that's consistent with a primarily straight orientation. The labels we use for this aren't terribly precise.
I was only attracted to bodybuilder men, however my brain perceived hypermasculinity. Yes I after resolving the shame and understanding what this condition is I no longer can just appreciate a woman’s beauty non sexually but I am now aroused by women and not by men. Fetishes protect a child from feeling intense emotions and need to be corrected as they age especially if their identity and values don’t align with having a fetish (like homosexuality).
"It is the job of individuals and churches to define their own moral preferences, and to enforce them on the basis of voluntary free association."
Is this allowed in the US today?
"Liberalism is a self-correcting system. If people make bad choices, they should be allowed to experience the full consequences of their choices without being paternalistically protected by the state."
It seems like many policies in the US are exactly to prevent people from experiencing their "full consequences" and often on the dime of people who completely disagree and protest the "bad choices".
Very good. Enjoyable read.
The simplest model I would use is:
The typical person ends up sexually attracted to the other sex, and not to their own. To the extent this is a physiological process, it is easy to imagine it reversing by accident.
Single celled organisms invented omnivores before herbivores, but one suspects that in mammals, there were herbivores before carnivores. Assuming that rodents came first.
"There are some cases where state intervention can be justified, not on the grounds of protecting the addict, but on the grounds of protecting people like you and me from roaming hordes of deranged zombies."
This is not a liberal belief, though. Liberals believe that the zombies should be allowed to attack people like you and me on sight, and that attempting to retaliate means imprisonment.
So you’re a deep liberal, not a deep leftist (Marxist)
" I must become a secret third thing, which I call DeepLeft."
This gave me goosebumps. Solid delivery