Since i have quite some experience with computers, im fully aware that they are mostly at best temperamental, especially as far as the web is concerned, if i try them and get the same results, thats my experience, others clearly have different experiences, but like everything you propose, just for you i'll keep trying periodically til i get close to your numbers.
Happy Darwin Day!!!!
- Thread starter TheAlphaWolf
- Start date
Happy Birthday Darwin!!!
Where can I get a darwin t-shirt?
Oh yeah, and I do appreciate and remember the man, because without him, we might still be thinking that we all came from "god's" anus.
Meanwhile on sciforums, we have 1 guy with an obsession with sexuality who claims that 95% of men have sexual urges for other men, and another guy (anomalous) who claims he is a superior being who can destroy humanity.
I wonder what darwin would say?
Where can I get a darwin t-shirt?
Oh yeah, and I do appreciate and remember the man, because without him, we might still be thinking that we all came from "god's" anus.
Meanwhile on sciforums, we have 1 guy with an obsession with sexuality who claims that 95% of men have sexual urges for other men, and another guy (anomalous) who claims he is a superior being who can destroy humanity.
I wonder what darwin would say?
Quite the same reasons you post, you wish people to agree with your line of thinking.
Most people have tried to engage you and got fed up with your attitude.
Lying? Can you prove that too?
I think the only one who gets frustrated is you as you cant convince people to agree with you, most people deal with you quite calmly, to the point of laughter.The age old arguement of "they arnt talking properly, i must be right", either that or they've decided you dont listen so why waste their time? Unfortunately for me i have time to kill.
Well you can try them after a day or two!Lemming3k said:
Of course, even if you don't get my numbers that doesn't mean that I lied! I don't have to! I mean 2,00,000 results are just as good as 5,00,000. I have to be a habitual liar to attempt something like that, and you guys would have exposed me long ago.
Proof that Darwinists exist.Huwy said:
We had the theory of evolution even before he came. If he gave the oppression of men just a new face, then there is not much we have to thank him for.Huwy said:
And we have a group of vested interests who are equally obsessed about opposing! But it isn't an equal fight.Huwy said:
On one hand is truth, nature and honesty. On the other hand are social lies, artificial power bases and cunningness.
This guy has conculsively proved that more than 95% men have a sexual need for other men, and he is now already planning to take it the next level.Huwy said:
He is wondering if his time is up already!Huwy said:
Buddha1 said:
Actually he gave evolution the first viable mechanism. A mechanism that has been proven to exist over and over and still forms the basis for the modern understanding of the process of evolution.
Yes but if you don't have a discussion what is the point of all this.Lemming3k said:
When I raise an issue, I expect people to give their reasoning for accepting or rejecting it. Otherwise there is no point in proving or disproving something. If people are going to reject my hypothesis or points without giving reasons then why do I need to discuss it here on a discussion forum. what is the point in proving anything. Why are you guys here wasting your time.
Since heterosexuality rules the society and its spaces. Since it is forced upon each and every male-only space, leaving no room for male-bonding inside the mainstream.......why should it not be able to defend itself logically on a discussion board?
It confirms my point about the vested interest groups and the huge power base that allows people to get away without having to prove their positions. Even to oppose the other position without feeling any obligation to refute them.
I mean if my society calls women who work "whores" and the term finds valid acceptance in my language. Isn't a western woman, when the societies are imposing themselves on each other through globalisation, just in asking for at least a discussion on the word 'whore' and its meaning? Just because my society gives credence to such a definition of the word 'whore' does not mean it becomes the absolute truth.Lemming3k said:
In the above circumstances, women who sell sex can easily be confused with women who just go to work, people may say, who are you to tell us to change our definitions, but if on an open discussion forum the western woman wants to prove that women who work don't sell sex, she will have to have the definition reconsidered --- it is not justified to say we will continue to stick to our definition, because then we can never prove the truth.
Buddha1 said:
No, all the ingredients have been proven or disproven.
Buddha1 said:
Nobody denied that men have relationships with men and women have relationships with women. And men have relationships with women. Women have relationships with boys. Boys have realtionships with men.
So what?
Doesn't mean all these relationships consist of a sexual need.
Well scientists lately have challenged his very central ideas, as you can see --- that places too great a value on the reproductive value of sex, and the value of reproduction in general for life. I mean it is important, but to negate everything else, including a qualitative meaning to life is just dumb. They are proving it with evidences now.spuriousmonkey said:
DARWINISM IS OUT!
That would be more splitting the definition and reapplying it appropriately, than completely disregarding the current one and rewriting it, you're talking of her proving that women who work dont sell sex, not that they arnt whores by the definition you gave.
You're talking of having a hypothetical arguement in hope of changing views, again just because you consider the need to change the definitions to prove truth, doesnt make it so.
Now its Johann again? And where is your proof to back up this point? If it was the glue then human society would have fallen apart long ago, it hasnt.
So you don't thknk we need to stop calling the working girl a 'whore' just need to reapply it? Well I'm also not doing away with the definition of 'straight' or 'gay' completely, just reapplying it.Lemming3k said:
It was a vain effort to make you understand, but like I said you're are hard of understanding things.Lemming3k said:
It's plain and simple. I want to show what I consider the right face of reality. And since I believe that the western definitions are manipulated and thus I can not prove the reality with their use, I am initiating a discussion on them. After all these words have only come up in the past decade or so --- and a progressive society should continually update its definitions.
If I'm not allowed to discuss the definition, then it means that you are not allowing me to tell the truth. It is as simple as that! Do you want me not to tell the truth?
Otherwise, if you are confident of your definitions what prevents such knowledgable people from dislodging my concerns.
AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL, ALMOST ALL IMPORTANT WESTERN ANTHROPOLOGISTS, SOCIAL SCIENTISTS AND PHILOSOPHERS WORKING ON MALE GENDER AND SEXUALTIY ALSO CHALLENGE THESE DEFINITIONS.
and that is reason enough that people have to pay heed or fuck off.
We have quoted enough from johann. The complete article from Johann that consists these words have been quoted in the thread "Darwin is wrong about sexuality".Lemming3k said:
Buddha1 said:
No they have not.
Yes they have, I just quoted one of them. I have quoted her extensively. And I have also quoted another one extensively. There are a horde of others who are increasing by the day. The fundamentalist Darwins don't want to change, but how long can they forcibly control the scientific institution.spuriousmonkey said:
They are there as long as the heterosexual ideology holds power. That is the only thing that validates 'Darwinism'.
One voice isn't a challenge. The central ideas of Darwinism are natural selection and sexual selection. They are not challenged.
You just can't understand the basics.
You just can't understand the basics.