Science is not a perfect institution

[Buddha1]

Yeah, that Neanderthal doesn't deserve the attention that he thinks he does.

Women being weaker than men is sexually unappealing and often a giant pain in the backside. I like it when Australian for "no" is a big guy flying through the screen door and landing on his backside in the dust. When I help her move her furniture it will be nice to have her lift the other end of the couch. Also, it would be nice if when we had sex she actually participated, instead of acting like God had decided that only one of us would enjoy it, and not very much.

These ideas have to be termed "primitive", the ones that we are protesting, and they were obsolete when they were thought up, too.

I really don't mean to make this a discussion on male gender and sexuality. But I can't resist this one.....I don't really blame men for being so 'neanderthal' in their relationships with women. They are real straight men who were never supposed to be in a relationship with women in the first place. They have been forced/ trained/ brainwashed to be in relationship with women, and they can't do it well enough. They can't be considerate, supportive and emotiaonally intimate with women because they are naturally not made to be so. I don't blame their behaviour --- its the heterosexual society which must take the blame.

You can identify the real heterosexual male (but it does not mean that he does not have a sexual need for men) by the fact that he will gel with a woman like a fish takes to water. They will live like equals, like they were both of the same sex/ gender, like they are both one, there remains no difference at all. In fact a truly heteroseuxal male will readily subdue (in a positive sense) himself before a woman, and would easily allow her to dominate him. He will enjoy that. Such males are indeed rare.

 

[Buddha1]

Ahhhhhh…let me guess:

Science is a vile Heterosexual conspiracy, meant to reinterpret sexuality so as to convince mankind that sex is about procreation – usually involving a male and a female – and not a method of socializing and getting ‘down-and-dirty’.

Does anyone else think its mere coincidence that the male penis is tubular and roundish, like the human sphincter, and the vagina is like a slit, more like a finger?

Common people, can it be more obvious what WE ARE DEALING WITH HERE?!!!!

We’ve been duped.
No wonder this battle of the sexes has no end.

When you're free from clowning around (based on lies and stereotypes), you can finally get down to facing the truth. It'll do you a lot of good, I assure you.

 

[Satyr]

When you're free from clowning around (based on lies and stereotypes), you can finally get down to facing the truth. It'll do you a lot of good, I assure you.

Been there, done that. :bugeye:

Eventually you realize that stupidity loves itself.
It’s its own best argument.

Why fight what is so wonderfully contagious and funny?

Why don’t you expand upon how heterosexuality is a conspiracy?

 

[Buddha1]

Been there, done that. :bugeye:

Eventually you realize that stupidity loves itself.
It’s its own best argument.

Why fight what is so wonderfully contagious and funny?

Why don’t you expand upon how heterosexuality is a conspiracy?

Enough evidence provided already. As soon as you find time from rejoicing using stereotypes, you can look at them. They are now clubbed in the large and unwieldy thread called "Heterosexuality is unnatural". (I really don't want to discuss 'sexuality' here).

 

[Buddha1]

A major drawback of scientific methodology

Selective sampling is a problem rampant in the scientific world and overlooked by the peers in most cases. There are no inbuilt checks in the scientific institution/ methodology to tackle this problem of wrong sampling, and the validity of sampling is dependant totally on the conscience of the researcher.

 

[Huwy]

Which is why reports feature an entire section called "Participants"

For example.

Participants

The sample consisted of 145 adolescents aged between 13.9 and 17.9 years (M=15.9, SD=1.1), who were asked by Swinburne students to voluntarily complete the survey. 62 were male, 78 were female, and 5 did not specify gender.
The participants were mostly born in Australia (89%), and all attended high school:

Table 1
Distribution of school year levels of participants
Year 8 (2%) Year 9 (20%) Year 10 (29%) Year 11 (26%) Year 12 (22%)


Sampling has to be described, and there are a number of terms to describe flaws caused by wrong sampling. It has to be a sample representative of the population it is attempting to represent - and after that, there are a number of statistical tests to check the validity of a sample.

Not that you'd have ever read any published, peer reviewed research.

 

[Buddha1]

Which is why reports feature an entire section called "Participants"

For example.

Participants

The sample consisted of 145 adolescents aged between 13.9 and 17.9 years (M=15.9, SD=1.1), who were asked by Swinburne students to voluntarily complete the survey. 62 were male, 78 were female, and 5 did not specify gender.
The participants were mostly born in Australia (89%), and all attended high school:

Table 1
Distribution of school year levels of participants
Year 8 (2%) Year 9 (20%) Year 10 (29%) Year 11 (26%) Year 12 (22%)


Sampling has to be described, and there are a number of terms to describe flaws caused by wrong sampling. It has to be a sample representative of the population it is attempting to represent - and after that, there are a number of statistical tests to check the validity of a sample.

Not that you'd have ever read any published, peer reviewed research.

What do you think of the following examples (I know you'll just not reply when you don't have one!):

Example 1:
A researcher goes to specific asylums in a city and study so-called 'homosexuals' who come to attend its clinics or are lodged there. It takes it's sample of 'homosexuals' from there and concludes very very scientifically that 'homosexuality' is a mental disorder.

Everything is clearly laid out in the published papers --- including the details of the sample. But no peer-review cares or dares to point out the flaw, because it suits the public opinion or the concept of 'homosexuality' at that time.

Example 2:
Darwin --- the great naturist who spends years in the wild studying wildlife is so overwhelmed by the fact that there are instances of male-female mating and that males try to attract females for mating --- that he forgot to notice how many males actually participate in the mating process, how many do it regularly, generally how many times a male mates in his lifetime, and whether this male-female sexual attraction is permanent or temporary.

He bases his theory on the strong 'public opinion' that is keen to find scientific ratification for the pressures it has generated on men for ages. He showcases the few cases of male-female sex for reproduction and builds his entire theory of sexual selection and of reproduction on it.

And he coolly ignores the widespread male-male or female-female sex that exists in the wild (90% - 100% male-male sex amongst mammals as proven by the scientist Bagemihl). While it speaks volumes for Darwin's honesty and motives, his theories or his methond of sampling passes the 'strict' peer-review process.

Apparently science is hands in glove with religion as far as sexuality is concerned.

Example 3:
In today's America, A scientist takes about a dozen transgendered males who identify themselves as 'homosexuals'. They perfectly fit the homosexual stereotype and so noone can dispute the study. He finds that homosexual men have brain structures similar to that of women.

His study passes the peer-review process and as per the rules his sampling is immaculate. However, no one has really proved, and there are no evidences and no peer-reviewed papers that 'homosexual' or 'gay' is a biological group with different biological traits. Yet he can select some people as 'homosexuals'. So his sampling is passed on the basis of 'popular opinion' or concept of 'homosexuality'.

While what the scientist showed as a marker for a 'homosexual' is in all likelihood a marker for their feminine gender orientation rather than their sexual need for males.

Surely, there is something terribly, terribly wrong with Science.

 

[Ophiolite]

There is something terribly wrong with your continued refusal to cite evidence. Be good enough to provide us with references for the research referred to in Examples 1 and 3 above.

Provide one shred of evidence - evidence: not fanciful, unsubstantiated speculation - that the primary function of sex is not reproduction.

 

[Laika]

Darwin --- the great naturist who spends years in the wild studying wildlife is so overwhelmed by the fact that there are instances of male-female mating and that males try to attract females for mating --- that he forgot to notice how many males actually participate in the mating process, how many do it regularly, generally how many times a male mates in his lifetime, and whether this male-female sexual attraction is permanent or temporary.

Darwin was a naturist? Now that is interesting. Although I'm confused: what separates the great ones from the merely adequate ones?

 

[Ophiolite]

Indeed, yes. Astounding news. I could imagine Alfred Russel Wallace might have been, given the climatic conditions in the far east, where he spent much of his life. But Darwin! Did the two ever wander the South Downs au natural? One can imagine the conversation:
"No, Charles. We should not go over there lest we spy male animals engaged in sexual bonding. Were that to happen we should have to abandon entirely our speculative fiction of evolution and suffer the consequent loss of the lucrative lecture circuit."

As to what distinguishes a truly great naturist from a simply adequate one, I think you already know the answer to that one. A visit to any naturist retreat would soon reveal all.

 

[Laika]

Are you suggesting that Darwin might have been more than just intellectually 'gifted'?

 

[Ophiolite]

I shall let the man answer that himself:

In Word: Generally, the most vigorous males, those which are best fitted for their places in nature, will leave most progeny.
In Deed: He had ten children

 

[Buddha1]

Darwin was a naturist? Now that is interesting. Although I'm confused: what separates the great ones from the merely adequate ones?

O.K. may be I used the wrong word. I did not mean naturist like he wanted to walk naked, but that he is supposed to love nature.

 

[Buddha1]

O.K. may be I used the wrong word. I did not mean naturist like he wanted to walk naked, but that he is supposed to love nature.

But it proves what I have been saying all along, when the vested interest group knows that they can easily disprove something, they don't wait for 'evidences' or anything else. They just attack at the statement with logic.

It is only when they realise that the said statements may actually be true that they refuse to look at any logic or evidence that is given to them.

 

[Buddha1]

There is something terribly wrong with your continued refusal to cite evidence. Be good enough to provide us with references for the research referred to in Examples 1 and 3 above.

You are determined not to look at any evidence I may provide. I refuse to follow the line that only peer-reviewed paper constitutes evidence. Although, wherever I have access I'll produce them. However, if I sense that someone is not sincere about a discussion I will not feel obliged to entertain him.

I had read about the specific studies mentioned in example 1. several years ago as a teenager in a library. I am not supposed to bring external evidences for every example that I give --- because it is not possible everytime. That should not stop a discussion when these things are common knowledge.

In any case I searched the net and found the following easily, it refers to the problem of studies on so-called homosexuality being motivated and that the researchers often only study 'homosexuals' (sic) who attended psychological clinics.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

The 2nd example is based on common sense, rationality and my own experiences with the misleading term 'homosexual'. The transexual homosexual person who conducted this study did not mention in her study the gender orientation of his/ her subjects. Unless gender is mentioned and taken care of, such haphazzard motivated studies will not lead to the truth and will be questionable, although bigots and vested interest groups (like the one you belong to!) will take that as the scientific truth as it suits their/ your agenda.

Provide one shred of evidence - evidence: not fanciful, unsubstantiated speculation - that the primary function of sex is not reproduction.

I would rather ignore bigoted people like you. You have continuously ignored my evidences without giving reasons or examining them.

 

[MetaKron]

Ophiolite pretends that he is being a guardian of truth and justice when he asks for these things, but he will heckle you like a child whenever he feels like it anyway.

 

[Buddha1]

Ophiolite pretends that he is being a guardian of truth and justice when he asks for these things, but he will heckle you like a child whenever he feels like it anyway.

That there is a vested interest group and that it is extremely powerful is a forgone conclusion. And so is the fact that they will stop at nothing to derail a fair and scientific discussion --- ironically sometimes, even in the name of science.

Now if we want a fair and open discussion in order for the truth to be out --- either for a discussion on this forum or in the society as a whole --- we have to find a way to deal with them.

It would help to expose them and their motives. To list out the exact maneouvres and strategies that they employ. But to do this we have to carefully examine them. I take their posts seriously because they give me an insight into their psyche.

 

[Buddha1]

While what the scientist showed as a marker for a 'homosexual' is in all likelihood a marker for their feminine gender orientation rather than their sexual need for males.

Surely, there is something terribly, terribly wrong with Science.

That differences in human brain structures are closely related with transexualism has been indicated in some recent studies:

http://www.genderpsychology.org/psychology/BSTc.html

Therefore, any study that claims to study antaomical characterisitics of what it considers 'homosexuals' should also clearly talk about the 'gender orientation' of its samples if it is not intended to mislead public and further the cause of the heterosexual ideology. For it is easy to mislead the public by ascribing 'gender' determining factors to 'sexuality'.

In fact they should also clearly define the term 'homosexuality' and who is a 'homosexual'.

Often samples are picked on the basis of self-identification. Which completely ignores the ground realities (esp. the invisible pressures of social masculinity) that determine the sexual behaviour or sexual identities adopted by men. It conveniently equates 'outward sexual behaviour' with 'inner/ actual sexual needs' as if we were living in a natural/ ideal society without any untoward pressures. This is science for you!

 

[MetaKron]

That there is a vested interest group and that it is extremely powerful is a forgone conclusion. And so is the fact that they will stop at nothing to derail a fair and scientific discussion --- ironically sometimes, even in the name of science.

Now if we want a fair and open discussion in order for the truth to be out --- either for a discussion on this forum or in the society as a whole --- we have to find a way to deal with them.

It would help to expose them and their motives. To list out the exact maneouvres and strategies that they employ. But to do this we have to carefully examine them. I take their posts seriously because they give me an insight into their psyche.

It's a very sad kind of insight. I have seen over and over again the way they can disrupt a forum and prevent information from getting to people that could save lives. It's always easier to destroy than it is to build. It takes away hope when you feel like if you build a house, someone is just going to come along and set it on fire with a few cents worth of gasoline and a match.

More discrimination against these people needs to be practiced. They are just saboteurs who are incapable of building anything on their own, and who are certainly not equipped to be guardians of morality, science, or common sense.

 

[Buddha1]

Therefore, any study that claims to study antaomical characterisitics of what it considers 'homosexuals' should also clearly talk about the 'gender orientation' of its samples if it is not intended to mislead public and further the cause of the heterosexual ideology. For it is easy to mislead the public by ascribing 'gender' determining factors to 'sexuality'.

Of course one can imagine how it adds to the overall invisible pressures of social masculinity felt by men that force them to disown their sexual need for men. The social myth of 'femininity' attached to same-sex desires then gets scientific validity. In other words these pressures get the powerful backing of science. Nothing like it for the Heterosexual ideology.

Of course we have everything that science requires --- all the methods have been followed (and if not who cares as long as it supports heterosexualism) and it has been peer-reviewed.