Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality

Nice, after I spent hours teaching you everything you now know about heat pumps. See if I ever help you again, jerk!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You want support for your unruly and destructive behaviour because you helped them?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What do you expect from someone who taught intelligent design in Kansas before it was fashionable?

He was god-awful rude about it, the way he is in every thread he is in. Isn't that the living end. A 67 year old retired college professor is now an Internet troll and not a particularly interesting one. Up all night because he doesn't know what to do with himself. Deliberately misunderstands things and then gets rude with people based on those misunderstandings. It's been quite a week already.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

More silly assumptions, punk. I've never been to Kansas and I'm not 67. I will always be rude to jerks like you - that is my choice and my privilege. Nor am I up all night. I simply have the freedom to sleep and wake whenever I choose. More of my personal freedoms.

 

No kiddling! I swear I thought he was a kid!

 

I requested no support of any kind. And you should be happy that I'm honoring a request to stop badgering you because it was taking up space. This is my very last communication with you and I feel better already.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That was hyperbole and I have to admit that I did it because I knew it would bug him. My apologies if I offended you, Buddha. Watch him actually be from Queensland. There are a lot of rude kangaroo-jumpers around there. But I could swear his personality type is that of someone I met in Kansas.

 

On the contrary, I'm amused.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's nice to see the littel children playing together.

 

One: You claim heterosexuality is culturally imposed on males (and females).

Yet, you use this very same process as "evidence", i.e. homosexual behaviour from more ancient cultures like the Greeks and so-called more "natural" tribes/societies.

Secondly, I asked you the question (in one of your first threads) what you understood by the term "natural".

Clearly, you haven't spend enough time thinking about this, yet, this is one of the key factors in this whole discussion.

From the moment people grouped together and formed a social system, "natural" and "nature" have no more invariant meaning. It is a mistake to use these terms (or the very concept) within a socio-cultural context. We have to ask the question: Was there a time where there was no social pressure? If not, then any reference to "natural" as in "like it was meant to be" is misplaced. The is still a major topic of discussion and the end of it is not in sight. Whatever we think or feel, it is quite possible that nothing was "meant to be" making it impossible to distinguish good from evil as there is no such thing in absolute terms.
Maybe it is time that you read works like "Jenseits von Gut und Böse", F. Nietschze (Beyond Good and Evil) and let that machinary which you call brain really work.

Btw, inbetween the improper language of Satyre, there were some clever objections to your statements.

I'm a serious and busy person.

Then stop spending so much time on a forum and finally understand the meaning of "evidence" and "science".

I have one question for you which bundles all my thoughts on this:

Why is the male anus not biologically adapted to the apparent "natural" behaviour of men-men sex?

 

James R, you are doing a very poor job at moderating. How can you let Buddha1 continually post his trolling "heteroexuality is wrong" threads in multiple sub-fourms? His trolling has steadily progressed from pseudo-scientific psychology to outright preaching devoid of any science whatsoever. It’s pure bullshit that is designed to induce arguments. I have stopped asking him for substantiating evidence because, like all offensive and divisive trolls, he continually refuses to provide it. And when arguments predictably pop up within his threads, you have a go at the people who Buddha1 has antagonized rather than the initial instigator!

I originally came to SciForums because it seemed that this was one of the few science forums that actually moderated the idiots. That seems to have changed somewhat. If you can’t be bothered, then I’m willing to have a go. Where do I sign up?

 

James R is not to be blamed. I don't think we need a strict moderator like you want.

Also from the idiots, we can learn

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

a). If you want to discuss seriously, then first learn to respect the other person. If you start by putting the other person down, or insulting him your arguments will be seen as nothing more than a vent of your frustration (when they often are!).

There is indeed no need for such satire as "let the brain work".

And as for satyr remarks, I couldn't careless about him. I don't want to read through his insults. If he is serious he has to learn to debate like a man. And a logical being. And so do you.

We have been through this debate about what is natural and what is not --- more than once. If you were not there, it is not my fault. Read the other threads carefully. Although, if you are really sincere about a discussion, and can do so by respecting the other person's and his opinions (and no personal attacks!) then you are welcome to start this discussion again.

If you are saying that there is a possibility that the earlier societies had "pressures to force men to mate with other men", then you have a point worth considering. And I must say, the only point I have encountered as far back as I can remember, which challenges one of my assertions using logic. But discuss it like a respectable man conducting a respectable discussion. It's not only what you say, its also how you say it. I'm not here to fight, and I will not entertain posts that do not show the basic respect.

I have never made a personal attack on anyone, unless and untill someone made it first. And the only reason I hit back is to show that the 'social power' they are using to browbeat me is fake, and it is also supposed to expose the hollowness of heterosexuality.

The term nature has only been misused and misrepresented since the time Christianity came along. Before that human societies existed respecting nature and in tandem with it. These societies had no misconceptions about nature. It was Christianity's attempt to mislead others that led to it speaking on behalf of nature.

 

I have a suggestion for all those taking a personal affront at my threads!

My threads will antagonise only those who depend on the fake social power that the heteroseuxal ideology brings. I have never denigrated any human feeling or emotion, nor any individual. Just those who have unduly empowered themselves and helped in promoting lies.

In my eyes, all sexual needs and desires are respectable and worthy. My posts make that amply clear. I have repeatedely shown how 'heterosexuality' is not the same as male-female sexual desire, so for a 'normal' person there is no need to take affront. It's only those who had inflated egos and false sense of power who are now getting frustrated.

I have an advice for all such guys:

You have thrived on such lies for long. You have exploited and denigrated others for long. Now the time is for you to validate that power. Stop fretting and fuming, and if you have an iota of truth on your side, then prove my contentions wrong. It is as simple as that. Show me and others by logic, how my contentions are wrong.

And remember, following is not a valid rebuttal of my claims (unless they are supported by evidences):
You fool, you idiot. You are absolutely wrong (Full stop!). You're a liar. That's your imagination (full stop!).

The above words are unnecessary if the truth is on your side. Only those who are not on the side of the truth take the help of such tactics.

 

Also, the so-called fight of the 'disgruntled lot' about wanting to see 'proof of my papers being published' or the like is basically unfounded, because this forum is not only for discussing what has been given the stamp of authority by those in power. We know how those in power can in certain cases be biased and suppress the truth (We know this has been happening and this has even been documented!).

This forum would be far too less effective if it were only to discuss what the authoritites (i.e. govts, scientific bodies, etc.) approved. We are here to discuss using a scientific anlysis (with the spirit of science) and it does not matter if our work or our theories are approved by the scientific agencies or not. Or if our work has been published or not.

 

Why blame James R!

If my contentions are so pseudo, all you have to do is to prove me wrong. If you are right you can easily do that. I promise, I will change my contentions and apologise for being 'wrong'.

But you cannot suppress 'truth' because you don't want it, and because you have the 'power' on your side. Science is useless, if it fails to listen to the disempowered.

 

What, pray is the meaning of the words 'evidence' and 'science'?

 

What is the relevance of the male anus here? Is this the intelligence of someone who calls others 'idiots'!

 

Can you show me one place where I have used the words nature in the socio-cultural context? Being in a society does not necessarily mean that we have to get away from our basic natural instincts, needs and desires. Society is uselss if it fails to fulfill our basic natural needs and aspirations. There is a distinct human nature, which is not different from those of the animals, and it has nothing to do with the cultures we live in. What we do is to try to mould our nature according to the demands of our cultures. But sometimes the demands are extremely unreasonable and with no apparent benefits to the society (and are only meant to unfairly empower one group!) and sometimes these demands require you to completely mutilate your nature.

That is what I want to prove here, That bonding with men is a basic human male drive, and by forcing men to mutilate this need and power, societies have crippled and disempowered men. I don't see why you guys can't have a serious discussion on it without first checking my papers.

That societies exert pressures on people to conform does not mean that 'nature' loses its relevance. If the society pressurises its people and want them to make sacrifices or to foregor their natural freedom/ needs/ desires, the societies must have a valid reason for doing so. It must benefit the society in some manner. And the benefit should be at least equivalent to the amount of sacrifice that it is asking of its subjects.

In my opinion all ancient cultures worked in tandem with nature not against it --- the farther back you go, the closer these societies were to nature. And I have valid reasons for believing so.

 

Ah! The myth of the noble savage. Poppycock.
Since homo sapiens has existed (say 180,000 years) he has indulged in the on-going rape of nature. Major achievements include:
1) Removal of all competitor humans. e.g Neanderthal
2) Destruction of the majority of large mammals.
3) Deforestation of large swathes of temeperate zone
4) Desertification of scrub and savannah.
Far from having respect for nature the overall role of man has been one of increasingly efficient and harnful exploitation.

So there really are gods in every tree and every river and every mountain and every wind?

But it matters if you introduce the existence of such papers and addresses of yours into the discussion. If it was not relevant to introduce them, why did you do so? If it was relevant please provide evidence that they are more than a figment of your imagination.
Science disempowers those who fail to follow the precepts of the scientific method. This you are doing in this instance, in relation to these alleged papers. You are disempowering yourself by your closeted approach to knowledge.

Referring to those who hurl insults you say:

And I would add "also those who are frustrated by illogic, poor science, lack of evidence, faulty logic and general haphazard thinking."

As above.