Happy Darwin Day!!!!

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by TheAlphaWolf, Feb 10, 2006.

  1. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    You fucked up son of a bitch get off my nerves. I think the first person to dispose off should be you! Does lunacy run in your genes?

    You pathetic piece of apology for a man! I suggest you should stop meddling with men --- you scum if you bother me again I'll fuck your ass off you bastard!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    ok..here is the quote you refer to:
    WHERE IS THE FUCKING 95% REFERENCE?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Anomalous Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,710
    People Please click Report for Buddha1s messages and ask to ban him and lock his threads.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Cool down man......losing this debate is affecting your health badly.

    This is what I stated at the very beginning of my thread:
    It seems, like cross too stated and is proved by the above paper (did you read the entire thing --- this is just one excerpt and is author's personal anecdote.) that the figure is like 100%.

    So if you want to criticise me for being wrong in my figure, as I reported it less by 5%, I accept my shortcoming!

    My apologies.

    And would you mind talking about the percentages in the respective thread. You hardly say anything worthwhile there.
     
  8. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066

    where is the 90%? where is any number? Where is any indication of a scientific survey?
     
  9. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    scientific survey my foot!

    We have already proved that this is not an exact science and that surveys will only prove what exists on the surface.

    This paper clearly proves quoting a number of references that in the pre-heterosexualisation days in the west --- as recent as 1960s most men indulged in sex with other men.

    What other proof do you need that all men have a sexual need for other men.

    You can put your fake polls up your ass, meanwhile.
     
  10. Anomalous Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,710
    It will be foolish to discuss anything in scientific terms with Buddha1
     
  11. TheAlphaWolf Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    445
    that's SOCIAL darwinism.
    So basically what you're saying is you make up words and make up definitions to go with those words, and then expect everyone else to fully understand what the hell you're talking about and everyone to accept your non-existant words/defintions as real ones.
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    For repeated personal attacks, combined with general threats of violence and homophobia, Anomalous has been banned for 7 days. This follows a specific warning not to engage in such behaviour.
     
  13. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Why do you think only the authorities (meaning the state or those who are in power) should have the right to manipulate with what words are to be acknowledged and what they should mean.

    When I put forward new definitions of words from my experience of working in a different culture, yes I expect people to discuss those differences and address them, change their definitions accordingly.

    I mean the west has been thrusting its definitions, concepts and values on us all the time, sometimes directly through the media, sometimes indirectly by masquerading its biases as science.

    At least I'm giving you the opportunity to discuss these definitions with the new information I am presenting from other cultures/ viwepoints/ experiences, that are not non-existent in modern west, as can be shown by the dozens of evidences that I have provided.

    It seems that anyone who has worked on male sexuality at the ground level shares my view. Including Alfred Kinsey, Freud and others. It's amazing that the biologists continue to ignore their views.
     
  14. Lemming3k Insanity Gone Mad Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,180
    I call bullshit, i tried it(just for you) and got 2,080,000. Also you're thinking of social darwinism, which as far as im aware is a slightly different concept.
    But i didnt expect you to do anything but exaggerate figures.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Just because you disagree with the definition means bugger all, you also EXPECT people to change their definitions to fit yours, if everyone in the world did this, a dictionary would be a waste of time.
     
  15. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Tell you what I googled it again and got 4,74,0000 results.

    I think at a different time, I'll get some other numbers. If only you could stop being paranoid and stop distrusting me and instead knew more about this world (including search engines) you'll not live with illusions.
     
  16. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    a.) I googled "social darwinism" and got just 5,51,000 results. So obviously there is a lot of Darwinism around that is not social. How is the fact that some of it is social Darwinism change the fact that the word exist.

    b.) If you google "Darwinist" you'll get more than 47000 results. The site "Darwinist.com" talks about biology from a Darwinism perspective. So surely the word Darwinism is also used in the scientific perspective --- especially when so many biologists are today thinking away from strict Darwinism. I think it is actually because of neo-darwinism as a fundamentalist school of thought amongst biologists that the divide occured.

    c.) according to wikipedia: "some claim that contemporary sociobiology could be classified as a form of Social Darwinism." I agree. A wild life scientist claiming that a dog is peeing because it is a mating signal is a form of darwinism. Or to say that two males or females by themselves cannot really be having sex for its own sake, Or to say that "homosexuality is a biological failure" is scientific Darwinism, not social.
     
  17. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    I don't think you're very bright are you!

    You read what suits you and block out what doesn't.

    I specifically said that I'm giving new perspectives to western notions. It is based on my work and notions from a different culture.

    I'm not just giving another set of definitions. I am giving reasons for doing to.

    On a discussion forum I expect people to be able to discuss the flaws in their own concepts and definitions and if there is reason to agree should be willing to consider new definitions --- especially for the sake of this discussion.

    When I put up several points regarding the wests definitions I didn't get a single objections or refutations for them.

    When I probed the vested interest group and forced a reply on a discussion of the term straight I proved it to be misleading --- and proved that it actually refers to 'masculine gendered' rather than 'heterosexual'.

    SO THERE!

    The problem is not with me. The problem is with the vested interest group.
     
  18. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    I mean I wouldn't be here discussing all these issues if everything was right with the western definitons.

    And if we have seen that the heterosexual vested interested group is very powerful. It decides the terms and definitions that suits its ideologies. It's like Islam. You have to accept what you're told. Only the west is supposed to be a free society and you can question. What is the use of questioning if the vested interest group can refuse to answer and get away with their manipulative definitions.

    And don't forget that I have posted innumerous evidences and quotes from noted western sicentists, scholars and phiolosophers criticising these definitions.

    Is it time for some introspection?
     
  19. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Well surely they are certainly existent in non-heterosexual cultures. And in your own culture important people have challenged your definitions. Only they have been sidelined without refuting their objections --- as you're trying to do with me.
     
  20. Lemming3k Insanity Gone Mad Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,180
    As far as im aware, it works along the lines of returning all websites which contain the word you search for, now unless the number of websites in the world containing the word fluctuates, the number will remain relatively constant, if you have information otherwise, enlighten me.
    Just so you know, i tried it again and got the same number, so i think your thoughts on search engines are flawed.(especially since yahoo returns 2,530,000, nowhere near your numbers).
    I'll gradually trust you more when something you say has some truthful merit, but it seems you take one step forward and several back, but why am i arguing, you're obviously an expect in all things computer related aswel!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Lemming3k Insanity Gone Mad Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,180
    Is that the best you can come up with? Try harder.

    Your posts are there for all to see, unless you've edited them, i cant be bothered to go back and check up on you all the time, you arnt worth it.
    You also said you expected people to accept your definitions and change theirs accordingly.
    Again what is to stop everyone from following these lines? You do not decide that your own reasons are valid.
    People are not obliged to accept your definitions to suit you, the same way you dont accept others, its something you'll learn to put up with.
    Because you arnt worth the time and effort, even when people do anything to prove you wrong they are ignored, there have been attempted discussions with you by various people, you dismiss them for your own reasons to the point of insulting them, and continue the debate alone most of the time. I have a suspicion finding your way onto most peoples ignore list doesnt help.

    Obviously others felt differently and were quite happy to let you live in your delusion of always winning the arguement.
    *Yawns* out of your almost 2,800 posts i predict 2,000 contain the words "vested" "interest" and "group"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You're quite boring really arnt you? Its quite apparent once the entertainment value wears off.
     
  22. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    I can quote the following post from the thread :"Who sang this :

    Obviously, even when you don't know about something, that doesn't stop you from throwing accusations.

    On the other hand it will also teach you that sometimes our most trusted systems and notions that we believe in, can decieve us --- as in the case of computers --- we believe that they are constant and stable in their functions, but sometimes it is not the case.
     
  23. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Well people are not obliged to discuss with me. When they do, they are expected to do it sincerely. I'm not asking to change the definitions in their real life. But at least for the sake of this discussion if something is proven wrong, then they must either contend or agree.

    If they don't want to be bothered, I'm not forcing them to come to my threads and reply to me. But they can't come to accuse me and then hide when they have to deal with definitions and evidences. Then come back again to abuse and accuse some more then go into hinding once again when I bring them up.

    the game of hide and seek.

    If I'm not worth the time and effort, why do they waste my and their time posting stupid accusations and stuff?

    Either you be willing to discuss things out, or you keep off (I'm talking about the vested interest group in general!).

    Can you get me one single point that they proved me wrong on, and instead of paying heed I insulted them. One single point is all I ask for?

    If not accept that you are delibeately lying to vent out your frustrations.

    Well obviously they didn't and obviously they weren't.

    Otherwise they would not keep bothering me again and again with accusations and more accusations. They are upset, but they don't want to discuss the issues. Because there is not much they have to say for themselves.
     

Share This Page