Buddha1 is Wrong about Sexuality.

I just dont agree with him.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think alot of people have taken to just ignoring him, many of us have tried to argue with him but he won't listen to sense, logic or reason.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you fafnir. I'm honoured to have yet another thread in my name!

I mean I had never imagined that I'd rake things up so vigorously. I'm making a mark, and if people have to create a thread to disagree with me then I think I'm affecting them.

I just hope that instead of just putting up a resistance, it would make people think. And think rising above petty personal interests. I don't know if there is is a flaw in my style of debating, or is it only as I expected --- that before I can get across to men who matter, I will have to get past the formidable looking resistance of the vested interest group --- who may not have much to say, but they would resist in any case.

This is the most civilised form of resistance I have met so far.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

sense, logic, reason?

I'm honestly trying to look for them!

 

And neither does anyone else. The few that have were just dragging him along as a big joke. Which is exactly what his ideas deserve. They certainly aren't the least bit scientific and the only things he ever offers as proof are really nothing more than HIS own thoughts (which count for exactly nothing) and a few other very off-beat sources (which also count for nothing.

He and his ideas (an obsession, actually) are completely groundless and the biggest majority of us simply ignore him. His stuff isn't even worth reading as entertainment.

 

I have to agree, it does seem more like an obession. He manages to bring up his ideas on how men are all homosexual into everything!
I've seen the so called proof he's provided, he has one single paper which is dubious at best. He has argued with me over equine behaviour, when I am doing a degree and have discussed it with my lecturer, who has a PhD in Equine behaviour! As far as I can gather he's merely had a 5 minute chat with a horseman....now who do you think has the better informed and more scientific knowledge!?

 

All these thousands of scientists with degrees hid, destroyed and manipulated data from the wild to sustain Darwinism and Heterosexuality.

Certainly, having a degree doesn't mean that you'll be free from biases or brain conditioning. In fact having a degree ensures that you are brainwashed.

I mean what do they teach you at the university if not Darwin! Do they teach you to observe from nature and learn and analyse on your own. I bet they don't.

So what if Darwin was wrong in the first place? How many scientists are capable of challenging Darwin? What is he, God that he can't be challanged?

 

And surely you don't have anything to counter me.....or else the first thing you would have done would be to give evidence from what you've learnt......if not for my sake then to clear the matter for any 'innocent' person who may be taken in by my 'propaganda'!

And why don't all those people with PHD, who know better, given such evidences in the numerous sites that they have put up about equince behaviour?

 

Actually, with equine behaviour, you will find that the best way to learn is to go out there and observe. Those who have studied have spent years living out in america etc watching wild herds of mustangs.
The main structure of higher education and degrees is the idea that you should go there and learn for yourself. You clearly haven't done a degree as you would understand this, you are only given the bare bones of the information that you need to know the rest you have to go and research and find for yourself.

Where is the proof that they hid, destroyed and manipulated the data?
Exactly, you don't have any, because they hid and destroyed it, how convenient.

Many people have challenged Darwin, but none have come back with proper falsifiable evidence.

You will find the basis of science is you provide a hypothesis and go out with the aim to DISPROVE it, not prove it. Nothing can be properly proven, it only takes one small difference to disprove a theory, hence that is the route taken

 

Buddha1 1 has never added anything to our knowledge that we didnt knew nor did he ever learnt anything from us, He is a one way traffic valve.

 

Yep, that's exactly what forum trolls do.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

<P>

 

Really, if I were to start a thread saying the earth is flat......how many of you would pay notice or be worked up.

Or if I said humans originated in Europe? You'll leave me as an ignorant fool!

But your problem is that you can't ignore me, try as you might!

Because I'm talking about the truth!

 

Oh! so you want me to go and gather first hand experience of every evidence that I get? Cool! Next I'd be expected to go to Greece to learn things about how men behaved there in the ancient days!

I think a simple, illiterate mountain herdsman can tell you things that those stuck up professors with degrees can or would never do!

But the crux of the matter is that you have first hand experience and so does your professor who has a PhD degree. So why can't one of you come up with something that flies smack in the face of the evidences that I have been giving.

 

Well, I did tell you that a relationship which is made possible by condoms is an unnatural one, didn't I?

 

Yes, I have first hand experience where as you don't, and those professors have decades of first hand experience under their belts. You assume they are stuck up, which they don't, you also assume your horseman is an expert.
It is merely one persons assumptions and views, there is no scientific rigour, proof, evidence, studies etc. Those are all the things needed to prove a theory, cold hard evidence, not one little man and his ideas.
Anyone can come along and say what they like, but it doesn't make it true. I could say that all humans are actually 6 legged green polkadot martians but we haven't noticed yet, I could probably find a book to back me up as well, but that doesn't make it true!
Neither does your one single research study, and all your opinions.

 

I have quoted studies and information about horses from the internet with the links. Are you willingly ignoring my evidences.

And why have you, with all your knowlege and degrees not been able to give me one evidence that refutes my theory/ evidences?

 

Because I see no point, you will merely attempt to discredit them and twist the words.
I'll do you a trade, you show me 5 peer reviewed, published journals, showing that stallions are gay / homosexual, and i'll show you 5 which prove they aren't.

I will only accept proper peer reviewed published journals, otherwise any Tom Dick or Harry could have written it with no idea what they were doing or saying.

 

In his book Bagemihl has carefully documented several attempts by the scientists to hide, destroy, ignore and distort data on same-sex behaviour amongst the wild.

Here are a few excerpts from one of its reviews:

".....most scientists have thus far studiously avoided the topic of widespread homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom--sometimes in the face of undeniable evidence."

".....An overview of biologists' discomfort with their own observations of animal homosexuality over 200 years would be truly hilarious if it didn't reflect a tendency of humans (and only humans) to respond with aggression and hostility to same-sex behavior in our own species. In fact, Bagemihl reports, scientists have sometimes been afraid to report their observations for fear of recrimination from a hidebound (and homophobic) academia. Scientists' use of anthropomorphizing vocabulary such as insulting, unfortunate, and inappropriate to describe same-sex matings shows a decided lack of objectivity on the part of naturalists. "

"Astounding as it sounds, a number of scientists have actually argued that when a female Bonobo wraps her legs around another female ... while emitting screams of enjoyment, this is actually "greeting" behavior, or "appeasement" behavior ... almost anything, it seems, besides pleasurable sexual behavior.

Throw this book into the middle of a crowd of wildlife biologists and watch them scatter. But Bagemihl doesn't let the scientific community's discomfort deny him the opportunity to show "the love that dare not bark its name" in all its feathery, furry, toothy diversity."

and yes if you're going to dismiss Bagemihl as an unscientific lunatic with an agenda, here is what the site says about bagemihl book "Biological Exuberance":

".....Biological Exuberance is a well-researched, thoroughly scientific, and erudite look at a purposefully neglected frontier of zoology." --Therese Littleton

(excerpted from: Provocative Non-Fiction )

 

So, basically what you're saying is, you're getting this all from one single person.

See, that proves my point about you're theory not being scientific, for it to be scientific you need at least 5 different sources. You are working off one single book, that does not make him right, I have read a book where the author though that the English royal family and all their relatives along with various world leaders etc are all infact aliens originally from Mars. That was also a non fiction book, it doesn't mean he was right. He also provided various pieces of so called evidence to back him up, again that does not make him right.

It is very convenient that all these biologists happen to cover it up, it means that you can't provide any falsifiable evidence. You will also find that one person never stands alone, unless they are wrong. Usually even those that are wrong will be part of a minority, so there must be some other biologists out there to back up your book, so realistically if you're theory is correct you'd be able to find at least 2 other papers to back you up.

 

That's a perfect way to skirt the issue.

If you had any data to the contrary, you would show it! Why are you assuming that I'll attempt to discredit them. How can you discredit something which is flawless, without exposing yourself as biased?

How do horses become 'gay'? Do they limp their hind legs or wear pink saddles or walk with a gait??!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have never ever said that horses were gay. Gay and homosexual are stupid human terms invented by the modern west to distort the truth about male gender and sexuality.

Here is a link about miniature horses that I posted earlier. It talks about bisexuality in miniature horses

I don't have access to any such peer-reviewed papers, and frankly I will be surprised if they exist? We know now that scientists will hide the information even if they saw it. In any case I have no reason to doubt a non-profit, mainstream (heterosexual) site about miniature horses, that gels perfectly with the works of the scientists like Bruce Bagemihl and from what I personally heard from the horseman!

If you know any better, then the only way for you to refute the above information is by posting what you know, not by avoiding the issue by insisting on peer reviewed papers.