Sex and Murder in the Mammal: Why?

gendanken

Ruler of All the Lands
Valued Senior Member
Quinz Ubrons, in his “Promethus Rewound: A Hermeneutics of the Psychosexual Simian”, is the clearest testament to the male chauvinism, racism, theocracy and intellectual cowardice in the science field.

Look at all the obessions with sex clearly present in their science- anyone can clearly see the motive for Otto’s devising the pistons that we use on our engines was his obsessions with coitus (even the nomenclature is kinky: stroke, camshaft, cramshaft, shaft shaft, shaft); and the vehicle invented for the piston were the Duryeas' fixation on how exactly to get to their lover’s home without suffering the tedious ordeal of riding in a horsecarriage with every bump damaging the scrotum.
Cars can now bring our lovers together in seconds with a smooth easy ride ensuring healthy genitalia for what our proles call a “bootycall”.
Even the sheer innocence of Roentgen stumbling across a glowing fluorescent screen in his experiments verifies his own obsession with sex- one can only imagine this pervert’s elation when he realized what the X-rays he discovered actually were: he could now drill through clothing and peep at little boy’s underwear.

We are guessing of course and perhaps making light of it, but these manic obsessions that Ubrons so cleverly points out only confirm the lack of objectivity and sheer disdain- the outright fear- the science world has for novel theories since their energies are clearly spent elsewhere, so what is one to do when one finds the Ultimate Answer to an Ultimate Question?
I’ve found an answer and wish to share it, and woe is the listener who won’t listen.

Philosophy asks: Why is the mammal so obsessed with sex and why does it murder? Murder is a world of difference from kill.
I will delineate why:

In the animal kingdom, the only species known to kill for the thrill other than the human is the chimp, lion, and the canine. Chimps have been observed engaging in sneak attacks on their enemies, and in some cases either castrating or biting their fingers or toes off in clear parallels to the treatments we show to our war prisoners (burn those Muslims). They have been seen gathered around fights as so many Romans shouting down to the gladiators killing themselves for the audience and what’s more, their capacity to sit back and premeditate a murder is uncanny.
We only differ with the chimp by 1% in the DNA. We are just as close with the canine genetically (80%).
But this too does not exactly look like an Ultimate Answer.

Chimps also engage in tool use, yes? Not only using them for the foodgathering but also for the making of weapons.
Also, their gestures and behaviorism are very ‘human’- see Koko and Washoe trying to fuck their masters decently with ASL.
In the brain the human has at the base of its skull a region called a limbic system which not only regulates its interaction with others but right smack dab in the middle of it there are concentrations of opiate receptors and narcoticlike neurotransmitters known as enkephalins that when oozing give off orgasms of pleasure or profound misery and rage.
The chimp has this exact same thing, only larger.
As does the canine.
So do all other mammals- but these mammals don’t kill for the thrill.

What then is the culprit? Ladies and gentlemen- the Ultimate Answer to this Ultimate Question is ….the thumb.
Notice the importance of the thumb when handling equipment and tool making. Where would Ben and Otto and Roetgen have been if such a genius in anatomy did not allow man this brilliance in grasping?
The presence of this thumb moving back and forth on the hand with it being the digit closest to the brain means that this finger is more directly connected to the lower regions- the limbic system. The use of of this thumb triggers the flooding of these opiate receptors into a state of sheer thrill that the ape and the human prolong with what to an outsider looks like ‘creativity’ (science) and ‘murder’ when its really only the organism milking its own brain for these pleasure hormones. This is why science is, as the feminists have been saying for years, the sexist piece of shit that it is.
The thumb is of utmost importance in the handling of science equipment, and too, one's weapon.

So where do the dog and lion come in, you say? Look at their paws- each foot contains four digits BUT there is a rudimentary nub on the top towards the back called a dewclaw. This digit is the closest to the brain, and so just as connected to the limbic system as in apes and humans. They too, have a thumb.

Bundy, Gacy, Chikitiloh, Gein, Kemper- all these men had bigger hands (more useful in killing), thus longer, fatter thumbs.
 
Last edited:
No animal kills for the thrill, but all predatory animals get a thrill from killing.
The thrill is just the reward for obeying the instinctual urge.
And what about killer whales? They clearly exhibit obvious joyous triumph while killing something, and yet have no visible thumb.
Camels kill eachother, hippos do too, you'll find just about everything that lives in a social group, and then some, will kill members of its own kind.
And everything that kills undoubtedly gets a thrill while killing, thats why they do it.
Human breeding practices have lead to many odd variations on the classic homo-sapiens blue print. So where we all are supposed to get a thrill from killing an enemy , some humans have been created with a huge emphasis on that thrill, they want to revel in that moment for as long as possible and prolong the suffering of their victim. On the other end of the scale, and just as "faulty", some people are repulsed by death and couldn't stand killing anything.
Our massive variation in type is not because we are a special animal per say but because we have escaped the shackles of natural selection and overbred all over the place. There is no refinement or streamlining to homo-sapiens, all kinds survive and breed so we see every path the human species could have taken in its evolution, it took all of them.
Every animal would get that thrill from killing but probably not to the extent some of our serial killers experience that thrill. Simply because natural selection has strictly not allowed such organisms to emerge. We could concievably breed an animal ourself selecting for bloodlust and eventually produce creatures that lick their lips and become ecstatic while slowly killing something.
As it stands though all animals would get a little "hm hm yeah!:cool:" sensation when they kill something, zebras even, when that kick connects on a lions rib cage caving it in you can bet they enjoy it. When teenage camels stomp the life out of a baby camel they are loving it. Enjoyment in it's self is merely the carrot at the end of a stick making us fullfill our instincts.
 
Lou Lou:
some humans have been created with a huge emphasis on that thrill, they want to revel in that moment for as long as possible and prolong the suffering of their victim.

Yes, some like msyelf enjoy reveleling in the downfall of their prey and prolong it as long as possible just to watch the suffering of their vitctim.


366 words and 25 lines from the Doctor himself. HA!


You, sir, are an uqualified idiot. You've clearly not read Ubron's book.

*(edit: One for the road:

"And what about killer whales? They clearly exhibit obvious joyous triumph while killing something, and yet have no visible thumb. "
- Lou Lou)
 
No, not misinformation.

Wiggle that thumb of yours the next time you're fucking the gerbil- the orgasm increases, according to reasearch done by Ubron's himself, by 22.33017%.
 
22.33017%
Whoa... 22.33017% huh?

I'll have to see about that... *jerks off* *wiggles thumb*
Hmmm, no. My orgasm only increased by 18.093201011111 recurring %.
This research is erroneous.
 
gendanken:

Quinz Ubrons, in his “Promethus Rewound: A Hermeneutics of the Psychosexual Simian”, is the clearest testament to the male chauvinism, racism, theocracy and intellectual cowardice in the science field and we are reminded that the scientist of the Renaissance never quite died: he is still to this day an obedient son to his mother church.

Sounds like postmodernist rubbish. Beware of any book or article which uses the word "hermeneutics", especially in the title.

Our scientists have always been men too scared and stubborn to scrutinize their convictions so they hold on to ancient codes leaving only sexual energies to invest into the technologies we take for granted.
Anyone can clearly see the motive for Papin’s and Otto’s devising the pistons that we use on our engines were their obsessions with coitus (even the nomenclature is kinky: stroke, camshaft, cramshaft, shaft shaft, shaft); and the vehicle invented for the piston were the Duryeas' fixation on how to get to their lover’s home without suffering the tedious ordeal of a riding in a horsecarriage where every bump damages the scrotum.

This says more about Ubron's sexual hangups than about scientists'. As Freud once said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Even the sheer innocence of Roentgen stumbling across a glowing fluorescent screen in his experiments verifies his own obsession with sex- one can only imagine this pervert’s elation when he realized what the X-rays he discovered actually were; he could now drill through clothing and peep at little boy’s underwear.

That is, of course, incorrect. There's nothing very sexually exciting in looking at somebody's skeleton - in my opinion, anyway.

We are guessing of course and perhaps making light of it, but these manic obsessions that Ubrons so cleverly points out only confirm the lack of objectivity and sheer disdain- the outright fear- the science world has for novel theories since their energies are clearly spent elsewhere, so what is one to do when one finds the Ultimate Answer to an Ultimate Question?

So, are you saying that science has no novel theories because it is afraid of them? Funnily enough, it seems to me that science has given us many novel ideas, as is clearly evidenced by the technology you used to write your post.

Philosophy asks: what distinguishes man from beast? Is it love? “lies and literature”? Modesty, according to James? Are these the answers to the ultimate question?
No- its murder and the libido and in a few lines of text, I’ll delineate why:

(Is this supposed to be related to the previous part of your post, or is this a post-modern stream-of-cousciousness thing?)

In the animal kingdom, the only species known to kill for the thrill other than the human is the chimp, lion, and canine.

Killer whales seem to enjoy it, too. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

We only differ with the chimp by 1% in the DNA. We are just as close with the canine genetically (80%).

99% is closer than 80%. Duh! And even 1% is a significant difference.

The presence of this thumb moving back and forth on the hand with it being the digit closest to the brain means that this finger is more directly connected to the lower regions- the limbic system.

What?

How is the thumb the "digit closest to the brain", and how do you leap from that to the conclusion that it is somehow connected to the limbic system?

The use of of this thumb triggers the flooding of these opiate receptors into a state of sheer thrill that the ape and the human prolong with what to an outsider looks like ‘creativity’ (science) and ‘murder’ when its really only the organism milking its own brain for these pleasure hormones.

Do you have any actual evidence of that, or is this just a dream of yours?

Bundy, Gacy, Chikitiloh, Gein, Kemper- all these men had bigger hands (more useful in killing), thus longer, fatter thumbs.

Bigger hands than who? And were they out of proportion with their general bodily builds, compared with the average? Evidence please.

Maybe you should have posted this in the Philosophy section instead of Science.
 
James:
Sounds like postmodernist rubbish. Beware of any book or article which uses the word "hermeneutics", especially in the title.
Like, thanks for the advice dad, but, like, no thanks?

Quinz Ubron is a fucking genius. So is Sokal.
That is, of course, incorrect. There's nothing very sexually exciting in looking at somebody's skeleton - in my opinion, anyway.
True, but Roetgen did not know that. His initial motive, of course, was sexual in that one can imagine the possible exploits that ran through his head before he actually used an X-ray and found, to his chagrin, only a skeleton.

So, are you saying that science has no novel theories because it is afraid of them? Funnily enough, it seems to me that science has given us many novel ideas, as is clearly evidenced by the technology you used to write your post.
No.
I'm saying that my ontological theory in conjuction with my being a female would be met with disdain by the scientific community.
(Is this supposed to be related to the previous part of your post, or is this a post-modern stream-of-cousciousness thing?)
Negetive.
Its related to the thumb and its praxial connections with the penis.
Killer whales seem to enjoy it, too. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples
Whales were once land mammals- let any biolgist explain its anatonomy to you and you'll find that not only is the whale in poessession of vestiges that were once legs in its hindquarters, but the bone structures in its fin are also in possesion of a thumb analogue.

99% is closer than 80%. Duh! And even 1% is a significant difference.
Either flush your "duhs" down your toilet or choke on them- I won't stand for anything resembling the patriarchy attemtping to sneer at us women.
STRIKE ONE!
This says more about Ubron's sexual hangups than about scientists'. As Freud once said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
And your post here, like Lou's, says more about you.

How is the thumb the "digit closest to the brain", and how do you leap from that to the conclusion that it is somehow connected to the limbic system?
Think about it- of all the limbs on our body, which is the most proximal to the cerebrum? The arms or the legs? The arms of course.
Which is closest to the head- the toes or the navel? The navel.
Likewise, of all the digits on our hands which is the most proximal? The thumb.

With a little leap of faith (and you are asked as much with quantum theories as well as Darwanism so you can afford to do it for gendanken), one has to at least court this possibility that through proximity to the head, the thumb is in more direct contact with the lower regions. In this case, the limbic system.
Do you have any actual evidence of that, or is this just a dream of yours?
You're patronizing me.
Strike two.
Bigger hands than who? And were they out of proportion with their general bodily builds, compared with the average? Evidence please.
Well, the only evidence we need applying here is the detriment that testosterone is to the body.
Considering anabolic steriods that increase both bone and muslce mass, is it any wonder this chemical mimics the actions of testosterone?
And what gender among our species is the most agressive, in possession of larger limbs, hence larger hands, hance larger thumbs?

The male.

Maybe you should have posted this in the Philosophy section instead of Science
Maybe you just handled my ass penny.
 
Last edited:
Lola:
"I think it should be in the imafuckingretard section, or at least the cesspool. "

And I think you've handled about a thousand of my ass pennies, considering how long your post was.

Muhahahaha.....
 
And I think you've handled about a thousand of my ass pennies, considering how long your post was.

Think again.
detector2.jpg

This baby's been in the family for generations.
 
gendanken:

Like, thanks for the advice dad, but, like, no thanks?

Ah, kids these days - they have to find things out for themselves. They just won't be told anything! ;)

Quinz Ubron's is a fucking genius. So is Sokal.

Are you aware that Sokal is actually against postmodernist ofuscation?

True, but Roetgen did not know that. His initial motive, of course, was sexual in that one can imagine the possible exploits that ran through his head before he actually used an X-ray and found, to his chagrin, only a skeleton.

You don't seem to know much of the history of Roentgen's discovery, let alone his motives.

I'm saying that my ontological theory in conjuction of my being a female would be met with disdain by the scientific community.

You have an ontological theory? Ok. Let's hear it. Or are you afraid of my disdain?

Whales were once land mammals- let any biolgist explain its anatonomy to you and you'll find that not only is the whale in poessession of vestiges that were once legs in its hindquarters, but the bone structures in its fin are also in possesion of a thumb analogue.

No argument from me on this.

Either flush your "duhs" down your toilet or choke on them- I won't stand for anything resembling the patriarchy attemtping to sneer at us women.

I'm not sneering at "us women". I'm having a quiet chuckle at YOUR pretentiousness, gendanken. That's a "your" singular, by the way, not a "your" plural. Your self-righteous outrage is misplaced.

Think about it- of all the limbs on our body, which is the most proximal to the cerebrum? The arms or the legs? The arms of course.
Which is closest to the head- the toes or the navel? The navel.
Likewise, of all the digits on our hands which is the most proximal? The thumb.

I'd say my little finger is about the same distance from my cerebrum as my thumb, so it seems the thumb should be no bigger deal than the little finger, according to your line of argument.

With a little leap of faith (and you are asked as much with quantum theories as well as Darwanism so you can afford to do it for gendanken), one has to at least court this possibility that through proximity to the head, the thumb is in more direct contact with the lower regions. In this case, the limbic system.

This is a science forum. As such, little leaps of faith are not allowed. What you need to do to make a solid scientific argument is to establish a causal link between spatial proximity to the cerebrum and whatever else it is that you think that causes. So far, you haven't made much progress along those lines.

You're patronizing me.

You're patronizing readers of this forum. I'm just trying to make you accountable.

Well, the only evidence we need applying here is the detriment that testosterone is to the body.
Considering anabolic steriods that increase both bone and muslce mass, is it any wonder this chemical mimics the actions of testosterone?
And what gender among our species is the most agressive, in possession of larger limbs, hence larger hands, hance larger thumbs?

You're moving the goal posts. One minute you're talking about serial killers as compared to average men, and the next you're talking about men compared to women. One discussion at a time, please!

Addressing the point you've raised, I totally agree that men, on average, have larger thumbs than women. But I would put that down to the fact that men in general are larger than women. So, it's not such a remarkable fact, is it?

Me: Maybe you should have posted this in the Philosophy section instead of Science

You: Maybe you just handled my ass penny.

I am not familiar with that expression. Should I be offended?
 
Is this some sort of joke? I'm not trying to be insulting, it really is hard for me to tell if you're being serious or not here.
gendanken said:
Quinz Ubrons, in his “Promethus Rewound: A Hermeneutics of the Psychosexual Simian”, is the clearest testament to the male chauvinism, racism, theocracy and intellectual cowardice in the science field and we are reminded that the scientist of the Renaissance never quite died: he is still to this day an obedient son to his mother church.

Our scientists have always been men too scared and stubborn to scrutinize their convictions so they hold on to ancient codes leaving only sexual energies to invest into the technologies we take for granted.
Of course it would be trivially easy to list all sorts of major technological/scientific advances that don't have any sexual connotations. It's hard to imagine how photo-lithography, partial differential equations, nuclear magnetic resonance scanners, thermodynamics, x-ray crystallography, or quantum physics could be related to screwing.
Anyone can clearly see the motive for Papin’s and Otto’s devising the pistons that we use on our engines were their obsessions with coitus (even the nomenclature is kinky: stroke, camshaft, cramshaft, shaft shaft, shaft); and the vehicle invented for the piston were the Duryeas' fixation on how to get to their lover’s home without suffering the tedious ordeal of a riding in a horsecarriage where every bump damages the scrotum.
See, this is one of the parts that makes it hard for me to tell if you're serious or not.
Even the sheer innocence of Roentgen stumbling across a glowing fluorescent screen in his experiments verifies his own obsession with sex- one can only imagine this pervert’s elation when he realized what the X-rays he discovered actually were; he could now drill through clothing and peep at little boy’s underwear.
This is a very bizarre assertion, especially since the first x-ray taken by Röntgen was of his wife's hand. Do you actually have any evidence that Röntgen was a pedophile? Are you just trying to be funny here? Was this just thrown out there for no reason?
 
I am not familiar with that expression. Should I be offended?
No, intimidated.
But thats assuming she's not bluffing, which I'm fairly certain she is. Only a male would have the foresight to embark on an ass-penny circulation project. Females just talk about it and imagine what it would feel like to be that powerful. They'll never really know.
 
James:
Are you aware that Sokal is actually against postmodernist ofuscation?
Yes.
He was the foundation for one of the greastest hoaxes ever played on stuffy intellectuals.
He used all kinds of references, and formulas, and scientific laws in such a wonderfully technical manner that when appearing in the Science journals beside famous names like "Weinberger" and "Dirac" no one picked up on his deliberate corruptions of scientific principles.

Imagine the look on a pompous editor who would be the equivalent of....a science forum moderator, say .......when he fianally realized he'd been taken in by his own pompous imbecility.

Nasor;
Of course it would be trivially easy to list all sorts of major technological/scientific advances that don't have any sexual connotations. It's hard to imagine how photo-lithography, partial differential equations, nuclear magnetic resonance scanners, thermodynamics, x-ray crystallography, or quantum physics could be related to screwing.
Lets see here, considering I've just been called a bloody simpleton....

Yes, it would be hard Nasor- but not impossible.
Photo-lithography could be considered a precursor for some form of vouyerism.
Partial differential equations- I'm not sure of this, but Ubrons has a chapter in the physics section where he discusses Newton's closet homosexuality and his creations a distortion of his repressions.

Thermodynamics- the sexual act can, with some measure, be outlined in thermodynamic diagrams. The sex of reptiles is determined by heat- this can in some way (considering the limbic system is essentially called 'the reptile brain") be fit into Ubron's model.
Its late now so exactly how is not clear to me at the moment.


But quantum physics- the quantum world is as choatic and absurd as the relations between sexes, yes? It demans a sort of controlled insanity to understand quanta, as does the matter of 'screwing'.

Dr. Lou:

Fuck off- but I'd like to hear you jingling your pocket change before you go though. My ass smell is thrilling.
 
gendanken said:
In the brain the human has at the base of its skull a region called a limbic system which not only regulates its interaction with others but right smack dab in the middle of it there are concentrations of opiate receptors and narcoticlike neurotransmitters known as enkephalins that when oozing give off orgasms of pleasure or profound misery and rage.


o my god...the limbic system has been pulled out of the hat again.
 
gendanken:

The difference between Sokal's editor and me is that I haven't been taken in by your little hoax, gendanken.

So, have you finished here, or do you have something which might support your silly claims?
 
Subliminal messages, gendanken? I've tried it before, but no one noticed. It's rather easy when it's just one word though, isn't it?

I think the contention that animals don't kill for a thrill is certainly up for debate. It's hard to say exactly what a "thrill" is in this context, but predators enjoy torturing their victims. It enhances their hunting skills and makes them more efficient killers.

Where do you think the term cat and mouse comes from? Cats love to 'play' with prey. Batting it here, nipping at it there. Just soaking up the terror. Although they probably don't attribute terror to prey, it's hard to say abou that.

Also, I've heard stories of Wolverines going up and down the trap lines just killing the animals caught in traps. Not eating them, just killing them.

Innumerable other examples could be brought up as well. Life feeds on life and fulfilling instincts arouses pleasure.

Now, on the matter of mixing sex with murder, that's a tricky subject. I think only the higher animals who have become farther removed from instincts can make this type of mistake. It's possible that there are times when physical abnormalities in animals causes this behavior, but the higher animals wiring is a lot looser and we sometimes make mistakes when building our emotional library. It takes intelligence to be able to circumvent instincts. Or rather, wire instincts to the wrong emotional feedback loop.


edit: By the way, what's an ass penny? Sounds smelly.
 
Many things, if not everything, can be abused, including science, in all spheres of it.
 
By the way, what's an ass penny? Sounds smelly.
Seeing as how gendanken is just a poser and not even really in the game I guess I'll have to field this one.
Quite simply, an ass penny is a penny that has been in someone's ass.
Every now and then you meet someone who is just better than you (you do, not me). There is something about them, you can't put your finger on it, but they definately have this air to them that makes them superior to you. Chances are someone like that makes and spends ass pennies. Some people have been in the game for decades, putting like $40 worth of pennies in their ass every night, and spending them all over the place. These pennies circulate fast and reach everywhere, basically a long time spender can be fairly confident that everyone they meet has handled something thats been in their ass. It gives them the edge in every aspect of life, its like imagining people in their underwear, only its no illusion. You look over a sea of people and you know you have that over them, its an amazing feeling. You know they've touched something thats been in your ass. You know they've handed your ass pennies to their children to buy candy, tossed your ass pennies into fountains to make wishes on them, called a heads or tails, not knowing their selected side was tainted by the inside of your ass, etc. They're pathetic, I'm sorry but thats what it feels like when you make and spend ass pennies. It honestly feels like everyone but you is pathetic.
Its kind of lost its edge though, admittedly. Which is the only reason I'm divulging the secret as its no where near as valuable as it used to be.
Back in the day there were only 2 spenders. Do you know who those people are now? Thats right, Bill Gates and that guy that owns Ikea or whatever.
Now just about every successful person has ass pennies to thank, why do you think there are so many more millionaires today than there used to be? GW's economy? Yeah right. Obviously its the ass pennies.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top