Happening now: President Cyril Ramaphosa has taken to the podium to deliver the #SONA2021 before a hybrid sitting.

THREAD

1)
#Iran’s regime is increasing its measures aimed at interfering in U.S. elections.

@DNI_Ratcliffe shed light on this important matter.

Americans should be aware that Iran is pursuing this initiative specifically through its US-based lobby arm @NIACouncil.

This thread was inspired by @PrinceGanaku. He made a legal argument pushing back against the legalization of homophobia, which some like @konkrumah have happily advocated.

I come from an academic background in social and political philosophy. I wanna make a moral argument 1/x.

Homosexuality is better defined as sexual attraction in homogeneity. The claims made against this phenomenon have been drawn anywhere from biological science to majoritarianism in democracy. I would like to pick and tackle three of these: science, religion and majoritarianism

The search for what makes one gay, sensationally-named the Gay Gene, has dominated the scientific discourse on the matter. Science is reductionist materialism

The attraction btwn man and woman is thought to have been reduced to a material cause in our being so what about gays?

But have we really reduced heterosexual attraction to its material cause in our biology? The best answer is no.

I would encourage anyone to seek this: "what is the cause of heterosexual attraction" and I would confidently tell you that the science is inconclusive

We don't know

We have no idea WHY usually, those we call male are attracted in sexual biological and neurological terms to those we call female.

We know HOW it happens. That is to say we can explain observable phenomena like hormones and receptors moving but we don't know WHY men like women.

In what was United Bengal (modern day West Bengal+Bangladesh) back in 1941, Muslims were 56% of the population, and today they are approximately about 67% of the population. If you go back to the early 20th century or the late 19th century, Muslims weren't even a majority.

This

example of Bengal is what has been happening across the whole of the Indian sub-continent, albeit at a slower or faster pace as the case may be region to region, but the fact remains that the change has been unidirectional= As time goes by, the proportion of Muslims increases in

a given region and the proportion of Hindus goes down. Project the numbers out into 50 or 60 years and you have multiple states/regions of India with a Muslim plurality or outright majority. Project the numbers out to a century or so and it's difficult to argue how Hindus can

maintain cultural/political dominance in the long run. Some people like to say, "Oh well so what. Numbers don't matter, what have you achieved at 80% of the population which you're going to achieve at 90%!".

This is faulty thinking, because the direction of change itself is

the demgoraphic sense is quite critical of whether you are expanding or retreating civilisation. The more people you have relative to the enemy, the more the chances that you will adamant about taking over more territory. The less people you have relative to the enemy, the more