The short answer is that the pollution is bad, but so is it’s effect of turning the frogs gay because it fucks with frog populations, which fucks with the entire food chain after a fashion.
Nothing necessarily wrong with homosexuality in any species (except maybe the ones who can only mate once, or the ones that engage in traumatic insemination where the males aren’t as equipped to deal with being on the receiving end), until it’s frequent enough to have population level impacts.
the thing is , what you’re trying to imply the bad part is.
“They’re putting chemicals into the water” > this should stop because it’s pollution being done as a cost cutting measure.
or
“The frogs are turning gay” > being gay is bad, that’s why we should stop people trying to make things gay on purpouse to stop homosexuality.
The top one is sensible, the bottom one is psychotic
Nothing wrong with being gay. Gonna have some population problems when everyone’s gay.
That said, it’d be an interesting novel.
right, which is why putting chemicals in the water that turn the frikkin frogs gay is an example of something bad due to pollution.
The Foreover War has something like that in it
I mean it’s bad for the frog population to turn them all gay?
right, which is why putting chemicals in the water that turn the frikkin frogs gay is an example of something bad due to pollution.
removed by mod
The short answer is that the pollution is bad, but so is it’s effect of turning the frogs gay because it fucks with frog populations, which fucks with the entire food chain after a fashion.
Nothing necessarily wrong with homosexuality in any species (except maybe the ones who can only mate once, or the ones that engage in traumatic insemination where the males aren’t as equipped to deal with being on the receiving end), until it’s frequent enough to have population level impacts.