Science is not a perfect institution

[Ophiolite]

I shall take a leap in the dark and assume the "he" referred to in the quote is me, and that the quote is from Bhuddha1.
a) I am not rattled. I am really quite complacent. That's doubtless a combination of my laid back attitudes and my daily dose of beta-blockers. I may get angry. I may get frsutrated. I may get homicidal. I don't get rattled.
b) I think Bhudda1 is suggesting just about everyone is gay. I can do a simply delightful gay persona if you wish. Utterly convincing darling. I can also do a passable imitation of Hitler, but I've never felt the slightest inlcination to invade Russia.
c) If I wasn't conscious of myself I wouldn't really be conscious, would I?

Still waiting any kind of real evidence via a pm Bhudda1. Finding it a struggle to come up with anything?

 

[guthrie]

Ophiolite, I have a large array of homicidal weaponry if you ever want to borrow something...

 

[Ophiolite]

Very kind. Do you think I could sell tickets to the event?

 

[duendy]

Very kind. Do you think I could sell tickets to the event?

Aye..ye mean scapegoatin don't ye laaaad?? that way you can kill what be a abotherin ye....sooo they saaaayyy....

 

[Ophiolite]

Duendy, you've been reading far too much of Sir James Frazer. Still I applaud you. Go on take a bow, or did I mean bough?

 

[Buddha1]

I think he is more rattled by your persistence in suggesting that he is gay (as if he exhudes gayness to the world). It's called self-consciousness.

I did not call anyone 'gay'! It's your hurt heterosexual ideology that sustains your undeserved power --- which is manifesting here. It has ruined your perception. Like they say, how you label things determine how you percieve them! And you purposedly label them differently so it can distort your and others perception of things.

It's your desperate attempt to 'other' what threatens your identity --- and save the mechanisms you've built so painstakingly to keep your same-sex feelings suppressed. Such statements shake up that precarious mechanism --- thus threatening your heterosexual identity!.

When you get rattled this is the first signal (and I mean it!) that you have suppressed but conscious same-sex feelings within you.

To take a black and white case (which sexual need is not) If I call a black man white it will not affect him because he is not white --- no matter what I say, he will remain black. But if he is hiding something (let's say he's white and painted himself black!) and I go and suggest that he may be white --- he is going to get extremely rattled. Especially if he is drawing a lot of benefits because of his 'black' status.

 

[Buddha1]

b) I think Bhudda1 is suggesting just about everyone is gay. I can do a simply delightful gay persona if you wish. Utterly convincing darling. I can also do a passable imitation of Hitler, but I've never felt the slightest inlcination to invade Russia.

On the contrary, I'm suggesting that no one is gay! I think you are deliberately trying to obsfurcate issues here. That exposes your objectivity!

.....and your high scientific pedestal

 

[Buddha1]

I did not call anyone 'gay'! It's your hurt heterosexual ideology that sustains your undeserved power --- which is manifesting here. It has ruined your perception. Like they say, how you label things determine how you percieve them! And you purposedly label them differently so it can distort your and others perception of things.

However, it exposes all those who have been claiming that they never felt any pressures to be 'heterosexual'. That someone gets so cut up at an honest suggestion that they too may have same-sex feelings --- is a heavy pointer that they percieve it in an extremely negative light. That they too are living under/ are governed by, those same pressures --- only thing is that they had forgotten those pressures within the safety of their 'heterosexual' masks.

Obviously Ophiolite is not honest in his debates --- because he very specifically mentioned that it will not matter to him if someone called him 'gay', and that he'll be cool about it (this was meant to show that he feels no pressures --- which were in turn meant to prove that such pressures do not exist, or if there, exist only for a minority (what they 'other' as 'gays'!))

 

[Buddha1]

Obviously Ophiolite is not honest in his debates --- because he very specifically mentioned that it will not matter to him if someone called him 'gay', and that he'll be cool about it (this was meant to show that he feels no pressures --- which were in turn meant to prove that such pressures do not exist, or if there, exist only for a minority (what they 'other' as 'gays'!)).

I think what had happened when he made that claim was that he trusted his 'heterosexual' identity/ mask a lot to shield him from any possible harmful effects of being called a 'gay' --- he was indeed speaking on the strength of his fake social power. And so he thought he could easily dismiss the assertion (although dishonestly) that there is an extreme pressure on men to wear the 'heterosexual' mask to protect their manhood, and to stay ahead in the 'race for manhood'.

('Race for manhood' is not a vain race, but extremely crucial for men's survival in the men's world.)

He had no idea that the 'heterosexual' mask could be so fallible. All I had to do was to point out that there could be a 'mask', and to question that mask --- a mask that he had psychologically come to believe was part of his anatomy, his actual facade.

And that is why he is so disconcerted!

 

[Buddha1]

I've posted (in a different thread) two posts which show how science is being abused to 'other' and 'feminise' same-sex behaviour.Pl. click here

 

[spuriousmonkey]

You use a scientific study in that thread to validate your own beliefs.

How can you criticize science at one moment and then (ab)use it the other?

Is science only right when they agree with your beliefs? All other times they are wrong? Is that it?

 

[Buddha1]

You use a scientific study in that thread to validate your own beliefs.

How can you criticize science at one moment and then (ab)use it the other?

Is science only right when they agree with your beliefs? All other times they are wrong? Is that it?

I think you should have read the link before you shot your comment. The study itself (i.e. its results do not validate my points). It is the manner in which the study is conducted and broad generalisations that the researchers are basing on this study is what validates my point. Therefore I'm still ciricising science here.

But you have brought out a very serious issue. Yes it's true that I think that science is imperfect as an institution and has several drawbacks, that includes that it is an inadequate approach to life. Another drawback is that this institution can easily be abused. But that does not mean that there is nothing good about it. I'm only asking for caution in dealing with it and not allowing it to rule us like we did with religion.

In a world which only listens only to the established scientific institution, when the heterosexual system is abusing it to force its ideologies, it is not a bad idea to use the same science to prove the real truth. But of course the efforts are too few and far inbetween, because, well anything which points at the real facts (like Bagemihl) is quickly sidelined by the powerful heterosexual institutions. Ideally, there should have been no need to bring in science to prove that same-sex bonds are universal and an important part of Biology. Humans should have known that --- its an essential part of who they really are. But since the society has forced us away from this truth and science is used (abused) as a tool, we have no choice but to use science to uncover the truth --- eventhough if we have to fight the powerful heteroseuxal system to make this science possible.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I think you should have read the link before you shot your comment. The study itself (i.e. its results do not validate my points). It is the manner in which the study is conducted and broad generalisations that the researchers are basing on this study is what validates my point. Therefore I'm still ciricising science here.

they said:

It's important not to draw too many generalizations

 

[Ophiolite]

We should go easy on him spurious. He has had no scientific training whatsoever. What I would not go easy on him for is his simplistic, deluded notion that there is some grand ubermeister controlling the response of science to concepts that society finds unacceptable. He obviously knows nothing of chaos theory - it is equally clear that he is not married, for he knows nothing of gossip either, a practice that pretty well eliminates all conspiracy theories.
What I can't figure out is what he thinks the motivation is for this imposition of heterosexuality on us all.
Still, that's 48 hours at least with him on Ignore. I may be able to wean myself away within the week, especially since Martello started posting nonsense again.

 

[leopold]

In a world which only listens only to the established scientific institution, when the heterosexual system is abusing it to force its ideologies, it is not a bad idea to use the same science to prove the real truth. But of course the efforts are too few and far inbetween, because, well anything which points at the real facts (like Bagemihl) is quickly sidelined by the powerful heterosexual institutions. Ideally, there should have been no need to bring in science to prove that same-sex bonds are universal and an important part of Biology. Humans should have known that --- its an essential part of who they really are. But since the society has forced us away from this truth and science is used (abused) as a tool, we have no choice but to use science to uncover the truth --- eventhough if we have to fight the powerful heteroseuxal system to make this science possible.

nobody is "forceing" heterosexuality on anyone else

what is the purpose of sex buddha?

are you homosexual?

if not then how can you speak for them?

as for science it attemps to explain our reality.

 

[leopold]

We should go easy on him spurious. He has had no scientific training whatsoever.

what? you, hercules and alphawolf didn't hesitate to kick my ass into orbit, a lesson i won't soon forget.
and i thank you for it

 

[Buddha1]

nobody is "forceing" heterosexuality on anyone else
If you believe in everything that the heterosexual society tells us, and the heterosexual and homosexual divisions, then yes, there is no forcing. If you can look behind the facade then the story is completly different. No one knows it better than a man from a non-western, non-westernised country (no I don't mean in a racial but cultural way!) who is witnessing a forced westernisation/ heterosexualisation carried on by western media in my country. And we are all watching helplessly. The irony is that the media does it in the name of a 'free and fair society'!

what is the purpose of sex buddha?

Purpose of sex is bonding and reproduction. Male-female sex is primarily for reproduction. It is not for bonding. Sex for bonding is primarily between the same sex.

Heterosexuality is about changing this fact --- its about non-procreative/ non-marital/ casual male-female sex, or male-female sex only for its 'fun' or 'bonding' value.

The traditional 'hypocritic' society was far better than the modern 'free and fair society' (as they'd lilke to call themselves!) --- as the former's oppression of humans was restricted to making sure that men and women get married to continue the civilisation. Their restrictions of human sexuality had a purpose.

The heterosexual society too tries to suppress male natural sexual instincts for bonding with other men --- however it does so much more intensely and completely marginalises same-sex behaviour by expelling it from the mainstream into a 'queer' space. The vagaries of heterosexuality don't serve any purpose than to give undue and exploitative powers to a few (based on power inequations created by the traditional society --- but for a purpose!).

For a detailed discussion please refer to:

- Heterosexuality is unnatural.

- Darwin is wrong about sexuality

are you homosexual?

No. and neither am I heterosexual. Nobody is! (O.K. the majority is not!) These are artificial, 'western'/ heterosexual divisions meant to put pressures on 'straight' men to disown their sexual need for men.

It's not about me --- I wouldn't fight so much for me on this discussion forum --- which is hardly relevant for my country. It's about men --- and about humans in general.

In other words, I'm not fighting for 'homosexuals' (which is primarily an identity for feminine gendered males) --- they have a cosy space for themselves. As do real 'heterosexuals'. 'Heterosexuals' and 'homosexuals' have divided this society amongst themselves --- but they are in a minority. I'm fighing for real 'straight' men --- who form the majority of men.

if not then how can you speak for them?

I'm not speaking for 'homosexuals'. 'Homosexuality' is marginalised, feminised and denigrated male-male sexual behaviour. That is not how nature has intended things. In nature the majority of (masculine/ straight) men have a sexual need for men. I have witnessed it quite amply during the past 10 years of my work with men in a non-heterosexual society. Many scholars and scientists have also tried to say the same thing in slightly different words. I had initated a discussion on it in a thread titled "95% of men have a sexual need for other men", and had also given some evidences. I was going to present some more when people like Ophiolite and others conspired to merge the thread with several others that I had created to discuss the various social, biological and environmental aspects of society's tampering with male gender and sexuality, into an unmanageable and confused heap (Is Ophiolite a moderator? --- that would explain a lot of things).

as for science it attemps to explain our reality.

In this thread we are questioning its capability to do justice to reality --- as proven by its track record --- especially in areas like human behaviour and psychology.

 

[Buddha1]

No. and neither am I heterosexual. Nobody is! (O.K. the majority is not!) These are artificial, 'western'/ heterosexual divisions meant to put pressures on 'straight' men to disown their sexual need for men.

In nature the majority of (masculine/ straight) men have a sexual need for men. I have witnessed it quite amply during the past 10 years of my work with men in a non-heterosexual society. Many scholars and scientists have also tried to say the same thing in slightly different words. I had initated a discussion on it in a thread titled "95% of men have a sexual need for other men", and had also given some evidences.

I'll tell you something they have always hidden from you, i.e. they told you only part of the truth, here's the other part:

1 in 10 is a heterosexual!

 

[leopold]

buddha
when i ask a question can you limit your answer to the question?
if you are planning to discuss homosexuality with me you must know i am not a homosexual. i like women, pussy, vagina, titties, you know.
i will also say this, keep your vile-assed racist remarks out of your reply

edit
why are you obsessed with homosexuality? what's the big deal?

 

[Buddha1]

they said: It's important not to draw too many generalizations

So you don't believe the following is 'generalisation' --- especially when they include both masculine gendered men and feminine gendered men in the term 'homosexual': --- especially in the light that their own study failed to show a difference between what they thought were 'homosexuals' and 'heterosexuals':

"It's not that the gay brain is like the heterosexual brain of the opposite sex. It seems to be a mosaic of male and female typical traits,"

Nor is the following?

"Although homosexuality per se is not related to psychiatric problems, on those occasions that gays and lesbians do present with psychiatric problems, they often show disorders that are typical of the opposite sex,"

Saying something and practising something else is a prominent heterosexual tactic. It's why I call it cunningness, and is worse than hypocrisy practised by non-heterosexual societies.