Heterosexuality is unnatural

[Buddha1]

No, I didn't as you to explain what you said, I want you give us external PROOF of your statements I quoted. Provide an internet link, give us the title of a book, give us the name of some recognized expert with credentials, anything besides just your thoughts. They don't carry any weight at all with most of the people here.

Now I'm beginning to suspect your intelligence.

If you have failed to notice, I'm challenging accepted positions. A lot of what I am saying is common knowledge especially in non-western countries. I am speaking out of my work experience. I'm using scientific evidences whereever applicable. There are no scientific papers proving that the sun shines or air exists. Science is not God nor the gospel truth. It has it's serious drawbacks. Science cannot understand or explain human emotions or misery or social oppression. These phenomena don't have scientific evidences. Empirical evidences are more important when dealing with social science.

Run along kid. Go play before I loose my temper. You are wasting my time.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

First of all, I'm not going to provide proofs for my earlier contentions all over again. You can read the thread for the proofs.

Pure bluff.

I have read through this thread (man do I want that wasted time back!) and you have offered no scientific evidence whatsoever. I don't know what definition of the word "proof" you are using but it sure isn't the one the rest of us use. All you have done for page after page after page is spew out paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of your own personal interpretations and opinions. There is not one scientific reference to substantiate anything you have said. You did mention a few books at one point, but books are not peer-reviewed and do not constitute scientific evidence. (Textbooks that cite original research and references being the exception, of course.)

If you have, in fact, carried out all this supposed research that you claim to have done then it should be exceedingly easy to simply post a few key supporting references or sources of info for us to look at other than your never-ending woffle. Anyone who has conducted any real research into anything would be able to do this. But you continually refuse to do so because you cannot do so. Why? Because this whole pitiable thread is nothing but your own personal opinion.

I’m going to contact the administrators and request this thread be locked (which should have happened half a dozen pages ago). Unless, of course, you can redeem it by showing us some science.<P>

 

[Light]

Now I'm beginning to suspect your intelligence.

If you have failed to notice, I'm challenging accepted positions. A lot of what I am saying is common knowledge especially in non-western countries. I am speaking out of my work experience. I'm using scientific evidences whereever applicable. There are no scientific evidences that the sun shines or air exists. Human emotions don't have scientific evidences. Empirical evidences are more important when dealing with social science.

Run along kid. Go play before I loose my temper. You are wasting my time.

I'm not about to leave you until you've provided the proof I requested. I'm certainly no kid (with a couple of degrees, no less - six, actually) and I maintain that your whole thesis is pure, unadulterated bunk!

PROVE otherwise. As I said earlier, your words and your conclusions are completely worthless without external substantiation. Can you do it?!?!

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

If you have failed to notice, I'm challenging accepted positions.

Fine, people do that every day. But that doesn’t mean that you don’t have to be scientific about it.

A lot of what I am saying is common knowledge especially in non-western countries.

Ahhh, so your opinions are based on “common knowledge”, are they? Albert Einstein once said something that is very apt: “Common sense is merely a set of prejudices learned by the age of 16.” The exact same thing can be said of ‘common knowledge’. At one point it was common knowledge that the Earth was flat. Common knowledge means NOTHING! If you are going to be scientific then the only thing that matters is what you can empirically/quantifiably DEMONSTRATE.

I am speaking out of my work experience.

Personal anecdotes are not scientific evidence.

I'm using scientific evidences whereever applicable.

Fine, post them now. You should have them immediately on hand.

There are no scientific papers proving that the sun shines or air exists.

Nonsense. Of course there are.

Human emotions don't have scientific evidences.

Nonsense. Psychologists/clinicians/researchers quantify human emotion all the time.<P>

 

[VitalOne]

Thank you for preponing it, but my next thread was going to be that "there is no evidence for homosexuality in nature!"

As about heterosexuality amongst animals being natural, we have already proved how it is not so, so get something new.

I'm getting tired of all these frivolous minded people abusing this precious space to casually air their vent. This is a serious discussion, it's not a battleground between self-defined heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Frivolous minded people? You're the one saying that heterosexuality only occurs in certain societies as if it's completely abnormal!

That's pretty damn funny, considering how a man and woman's body are completely designed for intercourse with each other for reproduction, the sperm and the egg, come on man...get over it heterosexuality is completely natural, where as homosexuality isn't.

Come on explain why there aren't any gay fish or birds (Or any other primitive animals with no intelligence)?

 

[Buddha1]

Pure bluff.

I have read through this thread (man do I want that wasted time back!) and you have offered no scientific evidence whatsoever. I don't know what definition of the word "proof" you are using but it sure isn't the one the rest of us use. All you have done for page after page after page is spew out paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of your own personal interpretations and opinions. There is not one scientific reference to substantiate anything you have said. You did mention a few books at one point, but books are not peer-reviewed and do not constitute scientific evidence. (Textbooks that cite original research and references being the exception, of course.)

If you have, in fact, carried out all this supposed research that you claim to have done then it should be exceedingly easy to simply post a few key supporting references or sources of info for us to look at other than your never-ending woffle. Anyone who has conducted any real research into anything would be able to do this. But you continually refuse to do so because you cannot do so. Why? Because this whole pitiable thread is nothing but your own personal opinion.

I’m going to contact the administrators and request this thread be locked (which should have happened half a dozen pages ago). Unless, of course, you can redeem it by showing us some science.<P>

You are just utterly-utterly frustrated because what I am discussing here has shattered your power base --- your very sense of manhood. You are nothing without the power that the heteroseuxal label gives you. And someone challenging that power makes you feel helpless. And that goes for the three of you currently hoping to browbeat me into submission (high hopes!). --- light, hercules (misnomer) and vital one

I am talking about human oppression not physics that everything I say can be substantiated by 'scientific research'. And if you don't know, research is not always academic. Action research is an important field in social science. Besides, the books and internet references I'm talking about are established scientific papers widely available on the internet --- and the whole world is talking about them. If you are ignorant about them I can't help it. There authority is now established beyond doubt.

But your tantrums expose your vulnerability. You are part of the oppressive force and are afraid of losing your power. Instead of throwing your tantrums why don't you easily pick out my contentions one by one and disprove them. If I'm lying out of my hat, you or any other knowledgable person can prove me wrong (and I don't mean scientific papers) in a jiffy.

By the way can you prove beyond doubt that heterosexuality really exists amongst humans.

 

[Buddha1]

I'm not about to leave you until you've provided the proof I requested. I'm certainly no kid (with a couple of degrees, no less - six, actually) and I maintain that your whole thesis is pure, unadulterated bunk!

PROVE otherwise. As I said earlier, your words and your conclusions are completely worthless without external substantiation. Can you do it?!?!

Mr. expert with degrees. If you are so wise, why don't you disprove me.

 

[Buddha1]

Pure bluff.

I have read through this thread (man do I want that wasted time back!) and you have offered no scientific evidence whatsoever. I don't know what definition of the word "proof" you are using but it sure isn't the one the rest of us use. All you have done for page after page after page is spew out paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of your own personal interpretations and opinions. There is not one scientific reference to substantiate anything you have said. You did mention a few books at one point, but books are not peer-reviewed and do not constitute scientific evidence. (Textbooks that cite original research and references being the exception, of course.)

If you have, in fact, carried out all this supposed research that you claim to have done then it should be exceedingly easy to simply post a few key supporting references or sources of info for us to look at other than your never-ending woffle. Anyone who has conducted any real research into anything would be able to do this. But you continually refuse to do so because you cannot do so. Why? Because this whole pitiable thread is nothing but your own personal opinion.

I’m going to contact the administrators and request this thread be locked (which should have happened half a dozen pages ago). Unless, of course, you can redeem it by showing us some science.<P>

Is it a concerted strategy to sabotage this thread by the three of you? Do you think you can stop an idea whose time has come! Even if you were to manage to sabotage this space, you cannot stop information from reaching people. Because truth will find its way to reach people, in order to empower them.

Neither of you have cared to read the thread first, before raising your questions/ doubts. It only expose your motives.

You are hoping to create a ruckus so that the moderators are forced to close down this discussion. Well as far as the basic contention of this thread goes, it's already finished, as it has been proved without doubt that there is no heterosexuaity in nature.

 

[Buddha1]

Frivolous minded people? You're the one saying that heterosexuality only occurs in certain societies as if it's completely abnormal!

That's pretty damn funny, considering how a man and woman's body are completely designed for intercourse with each other for reproduction, the sperm and the egg, come on man...get over it heterosexuality is completely natural, where as homosexuality isn't.

Come on explain why there aren't any gay fish or birds (Or any other primitive animals with no intelligence)?

Sure. And these are issues which can be backed scientifically --- this way or the other. But why do you have to get so heated up. Don't take things personally. It exposes your vulnerability. That you are standing on loose grounds. Had you been standing on a solid ground you would have proved me wrong, staying absolutely calm -- like child's play. In fact if I had been so wrong, and your power base so secure, you need not have bothered about me at all, leave alone getting agitated. Who would listen to me if I were to go on about the sky being red.

 

[Light]

Mr. expert with degrees. If you are so wise, why don't you disprove me.

How silly. I cannot disprove a negative , which is what your idea is. And that's not the way it works. YOU made these claims - now YOU must prove them.

And I'm still waiting for your "supporting evidence." Where is it, besides only in your mind?

 

[Buddha1]

Frivolous minded people? You're the one saying that heterosexuality only occurs in certain societies as if it's completely abnormal!

Yes, aren't you aware of it. How many non-westernised societies do you know who have a word for heterosexuality? What was heterosexuality called before the termed was coined in the 19th century. Any answers --- these things are beyond the scope of science, let me remind you.

That's pretty damn funny, considering how a man and woman's body are completely designed for intercourse with each other for reproduction, the sperm and the egg, come on man...get over it heterosexuality is completely natural, where as homosexuality isn't.

Sure they are designed for reproduction. Who is arguing that. But they are certainly not designed for heterosexuality?

Come on explain why there aren't any gay fish or birds (Or any other primitive animals with no intelligence)?

Because like heterosexuality, homosexuality is a totally westernised concept, applicable only in a modern heterosexual society. That's why.

Otherwise recent researches have proved widespread sexual bonds between males amongst dolphins. We have discussed earlier how there is no heterosexuality amongst fish. Go read them, and if you can disprove something came back.

Birds are a totally different matter. I have said that in the beginning of this thread that birds do exhibit a behaviour similar to heterosexuality (though not entirely so, because birds only stay together in order to raise offspring, not for love).

 

[Buddha1]

How silly. I cannot disprove a negative , which is what your idea is. And that's not the way it works. YOU made these claims - now YOU must prove them.

And I'm still waiting for your "supporting evidence." Where is it, besides only in your mind?

I've already posted my explanation. It's for you now to disprove me. If you are not interested in a discussion but only want to disrupt, I am not interested to entertain you. You can go on waiting for ever.

 

[Light]

I've already posted my explanation. It's for you now to disprove me. If you are not interested in a discussion but only want to disrupt, I am not interested to entertain you. You can go on waiting for ever.

I'm not about to put any effort at all into disproving you. The burden of proof lies exclusivly on the one making the claims. That's your job, not mine.

 

[Buddha1]

How silly. I cannot disprove a negative , which is what your idea is. And that's not the way it works.

Really!. This is what you have asked me to prove 'scientifically':
"Heterosexuality only happens in a society which is forcibly made mixed gender by instituting women into male spaces. The traditonal gender and sexual roles of men about sex with women is intensified in such settings and they now have to have relationships with women in order to prove they are ‘men’. Earlier they were just required to have sex with women (or claim to have had sex or just be interested) and even earlier what was needed as proof of manhood was a child (son!)."

I don't see the words 'no' or 'not' appear once in the supposedly 'negative' statement that you find so difficult to disprove. Stop making excuses. Your only objective is to disrupt this thread.

 

[Buddha1]

I'm not about to put any effort at all into disproving you. The burden of proof lies exclusivly on the one making the claims. That's your job, not mine.

It's clear that you don't want to put in any effort in discussing the issue. Your aim is to disrupt which is amply clear by the following:
- your foul language,
- your insistence in asking for 'written papers', scientific papers on matters where scientific proof is not only unnecessary, which are beyond the scope of science, they being purely social matters.
- Your rejecting my explanations even without reading them. Your rebuttal came within seconds of my posting my long explanation -- I was a fool to comply.
- Your refusing to give your version of what I've said, or showing how I'm wrong.

But you have amply proved that you are not a 'man'. You chickened out of the challenge that I gave you to prove which one of us was straight!

 

[Buddha1]

Well, I've to go sleep now (its past midnight in my country!). But I'll make a short comment before I go:

I have learned immensely from participating in this thread. Certainly from those who supported me and gave me additional information, but more so from people who opposed me sincerely and gave me a chance to further sharpen my knowledge through discussion and by sharing of ideas/ experiences/ knowledge.

The three posters above who have tried to disrupt the thread today have taught me an important lesson too. And I wish to share that with you all.
The heterosexual world out there is utterly anti-man. The forces that oppress men have lots of social power even though they are in such small minority. But they have created immense hostility and I had a sample of their disruptive force and methodology through these three: light, hercules and vitalone. They have sort of readied me to the fact that it's not only reasonable people that I'll be dealing in the world outside when I raise these issues. But I'll meet people who will get frustrated and will stop at nothing to protect their source of power. That they don't have any pretensions to reason, logic or humanity.

But have no doubts about it.....These are hollow men. They lack natural masculinity. The problem is that blinded by the social power they recieved, they have destroyed their natural femininity too and are now only lesser men from inside. They are nothing if fake social manhood is taken away from them. Without heterosexuality being in power they will be exposed as such. In a level playing field they don't stand a chance against the real, naturally straight men.

 

[Light]

It's clear that you don't want to put in any effort in discussing the issue. Your aim is to disrupt which is amply clear by the following:
- your foul language,
- your insistence in asking for 'written papers', scientific papers on matters where scientific proof is not only unnecessary, which are beyond the scope of science, they being purely social matters.
- Your rejecting my explanations even without reading them. Your rebuttal came within seconds of my posting my long explanation -- I was a fool to comply.
- Your refusing to give your version of what I've said, or showing how I'm wrong.

True - I read only enough to see that you had not complied with the request for proof.

Please show me where I have used ANY "foul language." You cannot do that either.

Social matters are NOT, as you claim, beyond the scope of science. Have you never even heard of psychology? Evidently not, to make such a silly statement as that. There is also another very rich field called anthropology which also brings a great deal to bear on what you are asserting. Ever heard of it either?

Since you obviously cannot offer ANY proof whatsoever to back your foolish claims, I again call them pure balderdash. No truth in any of it at all.

 

[Light]

Well, I've to go sleep now (its past midnight in my country!). But I'll make a short comment before I go:

I have learned immensely from participating in this thread. Certainly from those who supported me and gave me additional information, but more so from people who opposed me sincerely and gave me a chance to further sharpen my knowledge through discussion and by sharing of ideas/ experiences/ knowledge.

The three posters above who have tried to disrupt the thread today have taught me an important lesson too. And I wish to share that with you all.
The heterosexual world out there is utterly anti-man. The forces that oppress men have lots of social power even though they are in such small minority. But they have created immense hostility and I had a sample of their disruptive force and methodology through these three: light, hercules and vitalone. They have sort of readied me to the fact that it's not only reasonable people that I'll be dealing in the world outside when I raise these issues. But I'll meet people who will get frustrated and will stop at nothing to protect their source of power. That they don't have any pretensions to reason, logic or humanity.

But have no doubts about it.....These are hollow men. They lack natural masculinity and are actually lesser men. They are nothing if fake social manhood is taken away from them. Without heterosexuality being in power they will be exposed as such. In a level playing field they don't stand a chance against the real, naturally straight men.

HA-HA-HA!!!!

And this from someone who believes homosexuality is the stronger driving force of life. (Don't you just love the entertainment provided by such a foolish person as Mr. Buddha here? Precisely why rulers used to keep court jesters around.)

 

[Buddha1]

True - I read only enough to see that you had not complied with the request for proof.

Shows your lack of sincerity.

Please show me where I have used ANY "foul language." You cannot do that either.

Jerk, idiot, strongly idiotic, is foul language. 'Gay' in my culture is extremely abusive (Don't ask for written papers on that for god's sake!), and I'm sure in your country too, outside the 'gay' space.

Social matters are NOT, as you claim, beyond the scope of science. Have you never even heard of psychology? Evidently not, to make such a silly statement as that. There is also another very rich field called anthropology which also brings a great deal to bear on what you are asserting. Ever heard of it either?

Pscychology is fake science. And I'm not the only one who is saying that. Psychologists tend to make far-fetched conclusions, fool people and change their theories every other day. They are perfect tools of social oppression. Are you so naive that you will believe anything that has the 'science' label on it.

Are you saying that social sciences are absolute sciences like Physics and Biology, and that what they have said is final? Isn't there any scope for challenging them? Is there no scope for introducing/ discussing new theories/ ideas?

Are you saying that there is no scope to discuss human and social issues beyond the realms of psychology and sociology, and unless one gets one's papers published after getting the required degree one need not even be heard? The world will really be doomed when that happens!

You are plain and simple a trouble-maker.

Since you obviously cannot offer ANY proof whatsoever to back your foolish claims, I again call them pure balderdash. No truth in any of it at all.

Suit yourself pal. But you've exposed yourself quite well. If you had an iota of belief in what your trying to say (what is it that you're trying to say?) you would have easily disproved me.

Since I know your motives now, I need not waste my time with you. Good night.

 

[Light]

Shows your lack of sincerity.



Jerk, idiot, strongly idiotic, is foul language. 'Gay' in my culture is extremely abusive (Don't ask for written papers on that for god's sake!), and I'm sure in your country too, outside the 'gay' space.

Ah, ha! Your knowledge of English is a little weak also, eh? Those terms can be considered as abrasive or even slightly abusive, but not at all "foul language."

Pscychology is fake science. And I'm not the only one who is saying that. Psychologists tend to make far-fetched conclusions, fool people and change their theories every other day. They are perfect tools of social oppression. Are you so naive that you will believe anything that has the 'science' label on it.

Are you saying that social sciences are absolute sciences like Physics and Biology, and that what ehy have said is final. Isn't there any scope for challenging them? Is there no scope for introducing/ discussing new theories/ ideas?

Are you saying that there is no scope to discuss human and social issues beyond psychology and sociology, and unless on gets one's papers published after getting the required degree one need not even be heard?

Ah-ha again! Now we are getting to a real source of your lack of knowledge. You don't believe in the human sciences at all. Ant that's why you can show NO basis for your outlandish claims - because the real scientists refute it.

You are plain and simple a trouble-maker.

Only for you and the few other dummies like you. Rabon, for example.

Suit yourself pal. But you've exposed yourself quite well. If you had an iota of belief in what your trying to say (what is it that you're trying to say!) you would have easily disproved me.

Nope, not a chance. As I and others keep telling you, the burden of proof is on the one making the claims - not on the ones who hear or read them.

Since I know your motives now, I need not waste my time with you. Good night.[/QUOTE]

As you wish - for now. I'm not anywhere near finished with you and your foolish position.