Talk:Bonobo

Good thing cheetah boy never found this... also sad that I did. Is there any real point to this article? ħuman 20:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

none. KIWF. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I had a good reason for creating this many years ago. Perhaps it was just after escaping the puritanical influence of CP and the idea of creating an article about another sexually active and sometime homosexual primate appealed to me.--Bob^{It's windy!} 21:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe keep the relevant bits for a Homosexuality in animals article, if we have one. If not, we should. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to nature

Why is the logical fallacy known as "Appeal to nature" used here to criticize religion and defend homosexuality?

I have nothing against homosexuality and I'm not a religious person. But we cannot use the the Appeal to nature fallacy.

To defend the logical fallacy known as "appeal to nature" when it favours anti-religion, but to reject it when it doesn't favour anti-religion, is double standard logic:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/227/Double-Standard

James343e (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

What's more concerning to me is that the article lacks sources of any kind. Like, which creationists hate bonobos? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 22:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's an "appeal to nature".

We say "homosexuality" occurs in nature because homophobes say that homosexual behavior is not "natural". Appeal to nature would be if an action is if okay because nature allows it. I think we would say it's "normal" to be gay but gayness is not inherently good or bad, but it's also not an alien condition or some mental disease as it's implied.

If it is an appeal to nature, we probably need to rephrase it. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the article could do well without the line, regardless, since that behavior is already mentioned above and I don't see what the sexual orientation has to do with tongue kissing or the other thing. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 22:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The page has sources, it's just that they refferance physical volumes rather than digital copies. In addition I am not against reformatting the article, (Darwin and Cthulhu know this page needs a cleanup) but I am against this silly dick waving subtext style commentary. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't mention why creationists hate them, or any specific creationist in particular. Because outside of that line, the article isn't that missional. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 22:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@BabyLuigiOnFire A fair and accurate point, shall we put it up for an AFD? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know where we got the "creationists" hate them bit. Maybe it could use a sources or an incomplete template instead. Since their activity is pretty much ripe for complaints from PC right wingers. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 23:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think that using a piece of evidence to debunk religious homophobes' appeal to nature ("homosexuality is unnatural") can be accused of committing the same fallacy. There's a big difference between "homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore it's incorrect to use the 'homosexuality is unnatural' argument" and "homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore homosexuality is natural/good/desirable etc." The second is an appeal to nature; the first is a perfectly rational rebuttal to an appeal to nature. --Yisfidri (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Mission

Missionality in this article is only detectable with a microscope. It's not even an interesting article in itself. What is this article's purpose? Avida Dollars^{her again} 12:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)