why don't you post this in philosphy.
Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality
- Thread starter Buddha1
- Start date
- Status
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Bhudda1, you could avoid a great many of the attacks (personal and technical) if you were willing to concede that heterosexual behaviour is the norm amongst animals, whilst maintaining that human culture has adapted and adopted the non-reproductive aspects of sex in a variety of ways. Such a position would be non-controversial, and wholly consistent with Darwinian views.
and?
What kind of a scientific advice is that?Ophiolite said:
You want me to compromise with the truth.....in order to avoid what --- personal attacks? :bugeye:
And where are the technical attacks?
I've been waiting for them for ages.And Darwin......why should I be interested in upholding him when the facts clearly show him to be wrong in several key aspects.
And 'selected scientists' with 'published papers' are saying that!
I don't think what you've just adviced really points to 'scientific integrity'!
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Bhudda1, I considered the possibility that your enthusiasm for your beliefs had ked you to overstate your case in many instances. I offered a summary of what might conceivably have been your position in terms that should have been acceptable to those who you think have 'vested interests'. In this way, had you found this position acceptable, we could have moved forward with a discussion of some of the cultural points you raise.
Unfortunately you remain intransigent in your delusions. And persistent in misinterpreting my posts.
Unfortunately you remain intransigent in your delusions. And persistent in misinterpreting my posts.
overenthusiasm? --- that's a judgemental word.Ophiolite said:
Overstate? Bagemihl has clearly pointed out that 90% to 100% of mammal males have sexual activities with other males. And this matches with my observation of men in my society --- in my extensive work.
Yes I am overenthusiastic, but it is only because I'm overwhelmed by what I saw amongst men, and overwhelmed by the level of mispropaganda carried on by the heterosexual society.
it is obvious that the vested interest is grossly insecure and aggressive, and just don't want to have a discussion.......but why should I get involved in their battle for power --- I am trying to find out the truth.Ophiolite said:
Why should I be worried about what is acceptable to the vested interest grouo? They have their own interests to guard, and they are not interested in evidences of facts. Clearly they are unscientific.
I am not going to be bowed down by the social power of heterosexuality. I'm here to expose it.
I've always maintained that you can make me go back on anything, if you give me evidences.
Although, to agree with you a bit......there may be some amount of genuine 'heterosexuality' amongst masculine gendered men, but which is difficult to establish when there are intense pressures and most of them lie about their true feelings. This can only be established if people are willing to discuss things.
I'll tell you what.......why don't you give me some basis to start. Why don't you show me some evidences so that I can agree that heterosexuality is indeed the basic animal sex drive (in mammals!), and then I'll retract and start from your position.Ophiolite said:
Is that too much to ask for?
And remember, I'm not challenging that opposite-sex drive exists for procreation. I'm challenging the 'bonding' part.
Buddha,
Why do you want men to be homosexual? You seem desperate for it to be so. In my society there are almost no homosexual men. Maybe your society is a bit screwed up?
Why do you want men to be homosexual? You seem desperate for it to be so. In my society there are almost no homosexual men. Maybe your society is a bit screwed up?
.
You have got to be kidding. Virtually no males in nature have 'sex' with other males. No penetration, no orgasm. Only with females. Please don't go on about a few abberant examples you might dredge up.
So, how do you explain the fact that females keep getting impregnated if heterosexuality is not the basic animal sex drive?
Are you excited by women? Do you really think that there is some kind of societal pressure for males to 'like' females?
This has got to be one of the dumbest threads in a long time.
Buddha1 said:
What the fuck are you talking about oh deranged one?
Shit for brains.
They studied 450 species and found same sex activities quite prevalent. Amongst mammals they found 90% to 100% same sex activities.superluminal said:
I never said that male-female sex doesn't happen --- it is not the same as heterosexuality. I have already analysed the definition of heterosexualtiy a few posts earlier.superluminal said:
irrelevant. I never claimed men don't like females. The argument is about the nature, intensity and period of this liking.superluminal said:
Buddha1 said:
1) Who are "they".
2) Same sex activities? Like dominance rituals? Having nothing to do with sexual preference?
Glad to see you're backing down from your insane position.
They are 'selected scientists' (in the words of Ophiolite) who have published their papers in scientific journals and have built a niche for themselves in the scientific world. I have used quotes from some of their work in my threads lately. You should go read them.superluminal said:
They have clearly dealt with these lies which were spread by earlier Darwinian scientists. The examples quoted clearly prove otherwise.superluminal said:
It's funny how if the male even forcibly has sex with a female it is not dominance and even if the male goes all out to have a mutual sexual scitivity (not necessarily penetration) with another male it is dominance.
So far I haven't had any reason to backtrack. If I find a reason I'd happily do that. Give me evidences after considering my points carefully. And I'll go back on my words. Eat them before you!superluminal said:
Your quotes prove nothing and have been soundy dismissed already. You keep saying they prove this or that when they do nothing of the sort. I dare you to reproduce just one piece of your 'evidence' right now so that we may dissect it. Be concise and to the point please.
Maybe I missed it. Can you please guide me to the alleged post that has dismissed any of my evidences through reasonging (just disagreeing doesn't amount to a rebuttal!)superluminal said:
very well then, here you go.....this is an excerpt from Bruce Bagemihl:superluminal said:
SHEEP
In bighorn and thinborn sheep, males live in what one zoologist has described as homosexual (my comment:sic) societies where same sex courtship and sexual activity occur routinely among all rams.
typically, an older, high-ranking male will court a male younger than him, using a series of stylised movements.
(a description of these movements follow)
So pervasive and fundamental is same sex courtship and sexuality in bighorns and thinhorns that females are said to 'mimic' males in order to mate with them. they adopt behaviour patterns typical of younger males being courted by older males (to spark their sexual interest).
B,
"Bruce Bagemihl"
I find no critical review of his book in any scientific literature. Virtually no reference to any of his published work other than this book "Biological Exuberance...".
This seems to be an agenda piece put forth by a gay man with a mission. I find nothing but popular, uncritical references to the book and the man. Where are the corroborating studies and other lines of evidence that support his conclusions? This is an isolated bit of trivia that appears nowhere in the mainstream scientific lit.
Now what?
"Bruce Bagemihl"
I find no critical review of his book in any scientific literature. Virtually no reference to any of his published work other than this book "Biological Exuberance...".
This seems to be an agenda piece put forth by a gay man with a mission. I find nothing but popular, uncritical references to the book and the man. Where are the corroborating studies and other lines of evidence that support his conclusions? This is an isolated bit of trivia that appears nowhere in the mainstream scientific lit.
Now what?
- Status