Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality

[Ophiolite]

Oh, and the broad sweeping generalisations of the society, the media ..... the concept of sexual orientation ...... that does not bother you?

Not in the slightest. I am perfectly comfortable with my heterosexual orientation. I do not feel, nor do I recall feeling, any pressure to be heterosexual. There was undoubtedly an expectation that I would be heterosexual, but since my genetic and uterine history pre-disposed me in this direction it did not consititute pressure.
I can certainly see that for one with a different genetic constitution and hormonal exposure in the womb, one that rendered them homosexual, that such expectations would be perceived as pressure. Such individuals have my sympathy.

You can easily show me my place by proving me wrong. Why do you think it's not worth your trouble to do that, even when you can't stop yourself from making unsupported accusations in posts after posts?

On the 30th of November I systematically refuted the following erroneous claim.

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.

Your reponse, the little I can recall of it, was ineffectual and misdirected.

Eventually, a neutral reader will judge this discussion on the basis of the kind of arguments put forth by both the sides, and baseless accusations or slandering or 'abusive' words will not really go in the favour of your stand.

No, but they'll keep us entertained along the way.

Then why am I getting so much attention from you? Why do you find it difficult to ignore my thread?

Q1:I like to practice debating techniques and well structured insults.
Q2:It's marginally more entertaining than Coronation Street or East Enders.

If you're coming anyways, and wasting your time on me, why don't you use some of that time to summarise point by point for me, as to why and how I'm over-generalising and over-estimating?

In the end, I can only say that I sincerely believe in what I'm saying. But, if you have logical reasons to doubt me --- how come you have not come up with even one valid opposition?

Since you ask so eloquently, let's start here.

This is the first part of your thesis.

I think a rough logical sequence of the development of sexuality can be described as follows:

1. In the beginning there was just one 'sex' amongst 'animals' which had sex for pleasure and bonding, and did not use any sexual process for reproduction. Reproduction had other means, e.g. --- in very simple organims it was achieved by just dividing oneself into two.

So, in the very opening point of your thesis is a gross error. You state the 'animals' had sex for pleasure and bonding.

Now, you do not say which 'animals' these were. But you have noted they reproduced 'asexually, and you surrounded animals with quotation marks. From that I deduce you are talking about prokaryotes, and the handful of eukaryotes that use the same technique.

Please provide me with even a glimmering of evidence for any of the following:
1. That single celled organisms indulged in sexual activity.
2. That a single celled organism can derive pleasure from that, or any other activity.
3. That the act of engaging in such activity produces a bond in a psychological rather than a biochemical sense.

I do not believe you can demonstrate any of these. It therefore appears that your thesis falls before it has even started to roll.

2. Then came sexual dimorphism and species got divided into male and female because this ensured a better gene pool and not only a better chance of 'survival' (as Darwin was obsessed with) but a more meaningful survival.

As an aside, if you are wishing me to avoid the insults and the cheap shots, can you do the same. To claim Darwin was obsessed with 'survival' is as trite as saying Einstein was 'infatuated' by gravity.

Now, please define 'meaningful survival'. What would be meaningful to an echinoderm, or a trilobite?

Male and female started living almost as two different species but who met briefly to produce offsprings.

And you know this how, exactly? This was true, was it, of the corals? You know that Paradoxides, or Olenella did not roam the ocean in uni-sex schools? This will be valuable information for Lower Palaeozoic palaeontolgists. Please explain how you know this.

a. Sex for bonding: i.e. bonding with the 'same', which in the new scenario became sexual bonding between males (and between females). The majority of the population (near total) carried this basic drive which has been there since almost the beginning of life (as even the simplest forms of organisms with only one 'sex', have been reported to have 'sex').

To me this constitutes an extrordinary claim. Please provided any citations that would support this strange contention.

I shall address the other points in your thesis if, and when, you provide some measure of substantiation for these first two.

 

[Ophiolite]

Leopold, try to get a grip on reality. This has fuck all to do with the existence or non-existence of God. It has to do with the process and results of evolution: a topic which, in my uneducated, simple-minded opinion, Bhudda1 has entirely lost the plot on. If you want to discuss the existence or non-existence of God, by all means go to one the many threads that address that issue, but keep your off-topic remarks away from this thread.
And then you wonder why AplhaWolf called you a retard. Excuse my bluntness, but really.....

 

[leopold]

Leopold, try to get a grip on reality. This has fuck all to do with the existence or non-existence of God.

how was my reply off topic? it was my opinion. it was my reply to buddha1. do you disagree with any of it? how so? if it is retarded to voice my opinion truthfully what does that say about your opinions?

 

[Ophiolite]

A reply in what context? Here are Bhudda1's recent posts on this thread.

Yesteday 8:15 am A request to Spurious Monkey
6 Dec: 10:10 pm A lengthy response to myself.
6 Dec: 3:34 pm A homily about enemies and success
6 Dec: Six posts throughout the day outlining his basic thesis
6 Dec: 7:40 am A respone to Rick Houy
6 Dec: 7:21 am A reply to himself! Rephrasing an earlier post.
6 Dec: 7:06 am A one line reply to me.
5 Dec: 3:44 pm A one line reply to Rick Houy

In none of these can I see anything to which your post makes an obvious logical reply. If you were replying to an earlier post of Bhudda's (and I see nothing in the previous two pages that constitues an obvious target) you should have quoted the remark(s) to which you were responding.

In the absence of that, and given that your statements make little or no sense, in the context of this thread, then you were posting off-topic. Hardly a criminal offense, but a fact none the less.
If you feel your post was somehow relevant to this thread you need to deliver something much more substantial than a mere statement. Some kind of demonstration of its relevance would be nice.

You ask if I disagreed with any of it. I thought I had made that clear. I disagree with all of it. We are debating whether or not Charles Darwin had an utterly flawed view of sexuality and its role. You miraculously transform that into a discussion about the existence or non-existence of God. You might as well have said "this thread and a lot of others on the forum boil down to whether or not we like milk with our coffee".
There is no problem in you voicing your opinions, but if they continue to be as lame as that one, I shall be forced to conclude that you are not just occasional capable of the actions of a retard (as are we all), but that you may actually be one.
As to what that says about my opinions, I should have thought, absolutely nothing. I leave that task to you.

 

[leopold]

ophiolite
when i made that post it was in respose to what i read in buddhas post. i agree with you it seems offtopic. it won't happen again. as far as factuality of it goes i stand by it. as far as opinions go you really don't believe that your opinion is special do you? you said yourself that buddha had gotten off the plot. i don't see you admonishing him. i will delete the post.

 

[Satyr]

I see that Buddha1 has finally exposed our Heterosexual pretences.
We all know what we really dream about when we are all alone- despite what science has talked us into thinking.

Sex, is obviously, natures way of bonding individuals and it has no procreative function.
That’s just a myth Darwin concocted to make his thesis stick with the laymen.

It was always Adam and Steve.
Eve came in to complicate things….or was it the snake?

This Heterosexual conspiracy, which perpetuates this status quo of monogamy and male/female bondage, is ridiculous and disgusting.

Sex has always been about pleasure. Nature created sex to keep us happy.
Who better understands the other than one sharing a gender?
Only a man can truly please another man. We all know this.

Damn!! It’s so obvious we couldn’t see it under our very noses.

Why do you think our species is called Homo Sapient?
Another “coincidence”? I think not.

It’s time we took our sexuality back.

 

[Ophiolite]

Would the foregoing mean you have a limp wrist? Should we henceforth know you as SatyrWrist?

 

[c7ityi_]

"The goal of love and sex is not reproduction: on the contrary, reproduction's goal is to have somebody to love."

 

[Buddha1]

I see that Buddha1 has finally exposed our Heterosexual pretences.
We all know what we really dream about when we are all alone- despite what science has talked us into thinking.

Sex, is obviously, natures way of bonding individuals and it has no procreative function.
That’s just a myth Darwin concocted to make his thesis stick with the laymen.

It was always Adam and Steve.
Eve came in to complicate things….or was it the snake?

This Heterosexual conspiracy, which perpetuates this status quo of monogamy and male/female bondage, is ridiculous and disgusting.

Sex has always been about pleasure. Nature created sex to keep us happy.
Who better understands the other than one sharing a gender?
Only a man can truly please another man. We all know this.

Damn!! It’s so obvious we couldn’t see it under our very noses.

Why do you think our species is called Homo Sapient?
Another “coincidence”? I think not.

It’s time we took our sexuality back.

This is the first time I've enjoyed your humour.

And apart from the sattire that "sex has no role to play in reproduction", you're not too off mark.

By the way, are you only capable of sattire or can you also have a real discussion. Because sattire is good to entertain, but to prove or disprove something you have to get serious.

 

[Buddha1]

how was my reply off topic? it was my opinion. it was my reply to buddha1. do you disagree with any of it? how so? if it is retarded to voice my opinion truthfully what does that say about your opinions?

ophiolite, when i made that post it was in respose to what i read in buddhas post. i agree with you it seems offtopic. it won't happen again. as far as factuality of it goes i stand by it. as far as opinions go you really don't believe that your opinion is special do you? you said yourself that buddha had gotten off the plot. i don't see you admonishing him. i will delete the post.

It's a pity that you've decided to take off your post. Can you repost it? I don't want to miss what some religionists have to say about this topic. I think I can take on those who claim to represent god, on this matter too! If it requires a greater discussion then perhaps on another thread.

I really don't see how what Darwin has conceptualised about sexuality differs much from what religionists say --- though those supporting Darwin will claim to be 'scientific', they have only assumptions to go by --- some of them far fetched.

 

[Buddha1]

Not in the slightest. I am perfectly comfortable with my heterosexual orientation. I do not feel, nor do I recall feeling, any pressure to be heterosexual. There was undoubtedly an expectation that I would be heterosexual, but since my genetic and uterine history pre-disposed me in this direction it did not consititute pressure.

You mean, just because it suits you personally you will choose to support one 'generalisation' but fight the one 'generalising' on the other side? Does not sound very reasonable, unbiased or scientific to me!

On the 30th of November I systematically refuted the following erroneous claim. Your reponse, the little I can recall of it, was ineffectual and misdirected.

Oh, so out of the dozens of assertions, and near a hundred evidences given by me, you chose to take me on a teeny-weeny, side point --- which to the best of my knowledge I had answered briefly while directing you to a previous in-depth discussion on the issue. The issue I guess was "what can be considered natural, and what not!".

We can still have a discussion on 'nature' if you are sincere about it!

But it also well illustrates another point. Those opposing my contentions have been unable to find fault with any of my evidences, and so while they have chosen to attack me from every other angle, including discussing smaller, unimportant points while ignoring the larger evidences, --- they have fought shy of discussing the EVIDENCES openly.

The strategy they adopt is as if the evidences were never posted in the first place. Too bad that no one but I can delete those evidences! The only other person who can do it is the moderator, and this explains why the frustrated lot plotted to have my threads compounded.

Q1:I like to practice debating techniques and well structured insults.
Q2:It's marginally more entertaining than Coronation Street or East Enders.

It well illustrates your 'unscientific' temperament, atleast when it comes to defending your own powerbase. Your scientific attitude goes only this far and not beyond.

This arrogance comes from a strong power base, which you have cunningly tried to deny knowledge of. But things are not dependant on your acknowledgement or approval for their existence.

Since you ask so eloquently, let's start here.

This is the first part of your thesis.

So, in the very opening point of your thesis is a gross error. You state the 'animals' had sex for pleasure and bonding.

Now, you do not say which 'animals' these were. But you have noted they reproduced 'asexually, and you surrounded animals with quotation marks. From that I deduce you are talking about prokaryotes, and the handful of eukaryotes that use the same technique.

Please provide me with even a glimmering of evidence for any of the following:
1. That single celled organisms indulged in sexual activity.
2. That a single celled organism can derive pleasure from that, or any other activity.
3. That the act of engaging in such activity produces a bond in a psychological rather than a biochemical sense.

I do not believe you can demonstrate any of these. It therefore appears that your thesis falls before it has even started to roll.

As an aside, if you are wishing me to avoid the insults and the cheap shots, can you do the same. To claim Darwin was obsessed with 'survival' is as trite as saying Einstein was 'infatuated' by gravity.

Now, please define 'meaningful survival'. What would be meaningful to an echinoderm, or a trilobite?

And you know this how, exactly? This was true, was it, of the corals? You know that Paradoxides, or Olenella did not roam the ocean in uni-sex schools? This will be valuable information for Lower Palaeozoic palaeontolgists. Please explain how you know this.

To me this constitutes an extrordinary claim. Please provided any citations that would support this strange contention.

I shall address the other points in your thesis if, and when, you provide some measure of substantiation for these first two.

I always welcome a specific and targeted scientific debate. At the most it will prove me wrong, but then both the parties will be the wiser. Truth should always win, no matter how it affects us individually.

Although I believe that the nature has given all of us a place in its scheme of things, and the real truth will accomodate all of us (barring our greed!)

allow me sometime to respond!

 

[Ophiolite]

You asked me if I was not bothered by the broad sweeping generalisations of the media in relation to sexual orientation. I replied that I was not.

You mean, just because it suits you personally you will choose to support one 'generalisation' but fight the one 'generalising' on the other side? Does not sound very reasonable, unbiased or scientific to me!

It's very reasonable. I am not concerned by the shade of green of the Eucalyptus trees growing in New South Wales. It doesn't effect me. It doesn't effect anyone I know. It is of importance to only a very small number of people.
Of course it's biased. It's a personal view.

Oh, so out of the dozens of assertions, and near a hundred evidences given by me, you chose to take me on a teeny-weeny, side point !

Bhudda, understand me clearly. I think you are talking utter, complete nonsense. I don't think your arguments deserve or require any respect or attention. I am, nevertheless, indulging you. If that is unpalatable, tough. I have now given you some substantive points to consider. I don't believe I needed to, but you have them. That's as good as it's going to get.

We can still have a discussion on 'nature' if you are sincere about it!

Every post I have ever made has been sincere.

Those opposing my contentions have been unable to find fault with any of my evidences, and so while they have chosen to attack me from every other angle, including discussing smaller, unimportant points while ignoring the larger evidences, --- they have fought shy of discussing the EVIDENCES openly.

As noted above your arguments are so flawed and weak they are not deserving of discussion. Despite this I have now addressed some of your so called evidences. And, as requested, I am giving you time to prepare a reply.
I shall be happy to continue pointing out the flaws in your basis evidences and in any additional material you provide for as long as you continue to post them.

Too bad that no one but I can delete those evidences! The only other person who can do it is the moderator, and this explains why the frustrated lot plotted to have my threads compounded.

This is paranoid nonsense. I am one of the frustrated ones and I assure you I am wholly unaware of any plotting to compound your threads. Personally I found it a pain in the butt. I also found it a pain in the butt that you had started so many related threads in the first place. Blame yourself for the end result (I know I do), not some conspiracy of plotters.

It well illustrates your 'unscientific' temperament, atleast when it comes to defending your own powerbase. ......This arrogance comes from a strong power base, which you have cunningly tried to deny knowledge of.

The only 'powerbase' I have is related to my intellect, my education and my experience. I see no need to defend any part of this. Please tell me what this mysterious powerbase is. I hate to have this potential asset going to waste. Were the above words just me being cunning again?
You see Bhudda, I sit hear reading your claims above, and thinking - "the guy has no idea!. He's making no sense at all. He's havering." It is part of what causes me to be so dismissive of your central thesis: it bears no match to reality as I have experience it or as anyone I know has experienced it.

I always welcome a specific and targeted scientific debate. At the most it will prove me wrong, but then both the parties will be the wiser. Truth should always win, no matter how it affects us individually.

allow me sometime to respond!

That is exactly what is on offer. I have given you the first salvos in that debate in my prior post. I await your reply.

 

[Buddha1]

I shall be happy to continue pointing out the flaws in your basis evidences and in any additional material you provide for as long as you continue to post them.

I'll welcome anyone who points out flaws in anything that I have been saying, as long as one is scientific. I'll even tolerate fools. But I or any other sensible reader will think nothing of those who are scared to touch the evidences provided but try to get away with flashing artificial social power.

 

[Buddha1]

The only 'powerbase' I have is related to my intellect, my education and my experience. I see no need to defend any part of this. Please tell me what this mysterious powerbase is. I hate to have this potential asset going to waste.

The power that comes from being falsely glorified as 'masculine', or a 'man' while artificially 'feminising' the real men. The power that comes from the society forcibly altering, suppressing or ignoring the truth, in order to make it seem that:
sexual desire of a male for the female is universal, basic or essential to be a man.
sexual desire of a male for a female is masculine while of a male for a male is feminine.

Its ironical that you deny any knowledge of this power when you have not taken care to hide it at all. I have provided numeraous evidences of the following:

- There is no heterosexuality in animals
- Heterosexuality is unnatural in humans
- Heterosexuality is queer
- Men face tremendous pressures to be heterosexual
- 95% of men have a sexual need for other men.

A number of men engaged in a scientific and logical discussion on the above but none could deny the evidences. There were a lot of other posters, trying to bull dozer me using abuses and accusations --- wiht the backing of the immense but hollow power that heterosexuality artifically enjoys --- because earlier societies overrated 'procreatioin'. But these posters have onoly exposed themselves and proven the pressures the society has to enforce heterosexuality. They have also shown that they have no conscience. Like I said "might is right".

So if you pooh-pooh my assertions, ignoring all of the above, it's only becausee you know you can get away with it. Heterosexuality is just too immensely powerful right now. You can bask in its fake glory.

But it will remain that --- fake!

 

[Buddha1]

Would the foregoing mean you have a limp wrist? Should we henceforth know you as SatyrWrist?

Self-confessed heterosexuals should not make fun of other queens. Afterall, the only difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is that the latter celebrates and exaggerates their femininity, while the former hides it under a false pretense of masculinity.

At least homosexual men don't make a false clalim to 'straighthood'.

For more information please refer to "heteroseuxality is queer". Which is somewhere in the thread "Heterosexuality is unnatural".

 

[Buddha1]

Would the foregoing mean you have a limp wrist? Should we henceforth know you as SatyrWrist?

By the way, if it wasn't for the fake social power that heterosexuality enjoys, you wouldn't be saying this!

You can't put down others unless you have 'power' --- even if you don't deserve it.

Of course it's biased.

That you feel proud about being biased and have no qualms about supporing lies if it suits you (you think its reasonable) --- it all shows your heavy dependance on fake social power. Without that you'll be nowhere. A nothing.

 

[Buddha1]

You asked me if I was not bothered by the broad sweeping generalisations of the media in relation to sexual orientation. I replied that I was not.
It's very reasonable. I am not concerned by the shade of green of the Eucalyptus trees growing in New South Wales. It doesn't effect me. It doesn't effect anyone I know. It is of importance to only a very small number of people.
Of course it's biased. It's a personal view.

Someone who so proudly claims to be biased and thinks it is perfectly reasonable cannot be taken seriousbly when you care ahout the truth. It exposes everything you've said so far as motivated.

It is of importance to only a very small number of people.

Nothing you say can be taken seriously anymore. You're just saying it because you're biased. You've exposed yourself.

I'm still going to answer the only argument of yours that has a scientific pretence.

 

[Buddha1]

Every post I have ever made has been sincere.

.....Sincere in its biasness -- yes! But a biased person with supreme power can not be expected to be sincere about finding the truth. Both the qualities are mutually exclusive.

 

[Buddha1]

I see that Buddha1 has finally exposed our Heterosexual pretences.
We all know what we really dream about when we are all alone- despite what science has talked us into thinking.

Sex, is obviously, natures way of bonding individuals and it has no procreative function.
That’s just a myth Darwin concocted to make his thesis stick with the laymen.

It was always Adam and Steve.
Eve came in to complicate things….or was it the snake?

This Heterosexual conspiracy, which perpetuates this status quo of monogamy and male/female bondage, is ridiculous and disgusting.

Sex has always been about pleasure. Nature created sex to keep us happy.
Who better understands the other than one sharing a gender?
Only a man can truly please another man. We all know this.

Damn!! It’s so obvious we couldn’t see it under our very noses.

Why do you think our species is called Homo Sapient?
Another “coincidence”? I think not.

It’s time we took our sexuality back.

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.

 

[Buddha1]

I don't think your arguments deserve or require any respect or attention. I am, nevertheless, indulging you.

Is that why you've tracked down my posts one after the other.

I'm not sure if you've really read much of my other posts (now merged), but nothing could be more foolhardy than to reject something that you find unpalatable, based just on your biases and fake power. You close your eyes, truth doesn't go away, unless you're living in the make-believe world of heterosexuality.