Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 36 to 69 of 69

Thread: George Is Wrong

  1. #36
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    the hills
    Posts
    66,711

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    where’s that cartoon?

  2. #37
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    the hills
    Posts
    66,711

    Default Re: George Is Wrong


  3. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    61,522

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    If it were genetic, even only a little bit if that were possible, there should have been no gaps.
    I don't think so Again, learning and genetics. Learning can reinforce or diminish the hard-wiring, or even overcome it. But really, none of us have enough evidence to demonstrate much of anything about this with anything approaching confidence.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  4. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,082

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    You must be an early to bed person. It is only 10.30 here.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  5. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,082

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    I don't think so Again, learning and genetics. Learning can reinforce or diminish the hard-wiring, or even overcome it. But really, none of us have enough evidence to demonstrate much of anything about this with anything approaching confidence.
    Au contraire. There is lots of evidence, from antiquity and from recently discovered tribal societies, that show no aversion, but no evidence that aversion, even slight aversion, was universal.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  6. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    61,522

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Well, I obviously disagree. Aversion is common in almost all cases, but not universal. But does that really demonstrate either a genetic basis or the opposite?
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  7. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,082

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Well, I obviously disagree. Aversion is common in almost all cases, but not universal. But does that really demonstrate either a genetic basis or the opposite?
    OK, your turn. How can it be genetic when societies do/have not displayed the aversion?
    Don't forget, the issue is distribution, not degree.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  8. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    12,791

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    I don't think so Again, learning and genetics. Learning can reinforce or diminish the hard-wiring, or even overcome it. But really, none of us have enough evidence to demonstrate much of anything about this with anything approaching confidence.
    This is by far the most accurate thing you've posted (I know you've made the same point before as well).

    And that is precisely the problem. George is trying to invoke the mantle of science to gain a veneer of "scientific" respectability and authority for a "hypothesis" that is, at best, sheer speculation, and has the potential to be very hurtful and damaging to a significant segment of our population, and a significant boost to those attempting to dehumanize the LGBTQ+ community. Baxter's analogy about explaining the motivations for racism through the same kind of speculation about a hardwired "disgust reaction" made that point very effectively. Were you paying attention?

    But as you say, not enough evidence exists. Not enough for proof, of course--absolutely not; in fact, the preponderance of information suggests the opposite of George's "hypothesis" to me (hence the need George feels to engage in some pretty blatant cherry-picking for his supporting examples--anything that tends to contradict his views he dismisses as "a different kind of ape"). But there's not enough even to meet the bar of "science" in the first place, because George's and your "hypotheses" are not subject to falsification through experimentation. That makes them sheer speculation, as you say.

    Finally, to further underscore just how "unscientific" George's speculations really are--and how their logic fails in some pretty elementary ways--let's look at just a few of the assumptions both George's and your arguments rely on, without even touching on the question of hardwired vs. learned behaviors:

    1. An aversion to same-sex sexual activity exists among a majority of humans. (Facts not in evidence)
    2. Sex is a zero-sum game, in which engaging in same-sex activities necessarily results in a reduction of opposite-sex activities. (Facts not in evidence)
    3. Engaging in non-reproductive sexual activity with the same sex imposes evolutionary disadvantages that outweigh the benefits offered by those non-reproductive same-sex activities, such as social bonding, cooperation, etc. (Facts not in evidence)
    4. To limit same-sex sexual activity, an aversion to such activities (rather than a simple lack of attraction to them) is necessary for natural selection to function. (Elementary failure of logic, and a violation of Occam's Razor)

    Tom
    Last edited by WI-Tom; 06-28-2022 at 08:01 PM.
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  9. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    16,645

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    Fair enough--but who is claiming an "immediate" weeding out? Not me. The point is, sexual behavior has been going on a very very long time, even on an evolutionary scale. There has been ample time to weed out behaviors.
    Sterility has been around for a long time too. There are plenty of nonadaptive genetic conditions that never go away fully.


    You're assuming perfectly monogamous behavior, when males particularly do not value monogamy--quite the opposite. The more mates (for males), the more opportunities to reproduce.
    No, I am assuming a normal of a few sexual partners, mostly in serial monogamous relationships. The average human only pair bonds a handful of times in a lifetime. "Wasting" any of those on a mate that will not reproduce with you obviously leads to less offspring than the next monkey.

    Don't fall for the trope of the promiscuous gay man, Tom.



    the lack of an aversion does not necessarily imply an attraction.
    Given how strong the sexual urge is, to the point that people will use inanimate objects to satiate it, a warm living body of someone you already like, able to make you feel so good if you let it, is too much temptation unless there is an instinctive rejection of it.



    Well, that's just complete nonsense. An average of 250 million sperm are released per sexual event, George. That's 500+ billion sperm in the average lifetime. And it's not a finite resource--the body continually renews the supply.
    Wrong. More sex requires more sperm production, which requires larger testicles. Again, look up bonobos. Evolution didn't give them big balls for nothing. Their lifestyle is very different than ours, and anatomy reflects that. In fact:

    Bonobo clitorises are larger and more externalized than in most mammals;[85] while the weight of a young adolescent female bonobo "is maybe half" that of a human teenager, she has a clitoris that is "three times bigger than the human equivalent, and visible enough to waggle unmistakably as she walks".[86]

  10. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    16,645

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Au contraire. There is lots of evidence, from antiquity and from recently discovered tribal societies, that show no aversion, but no evidence that aversion, even slight aversion, was universal.
    Links?

    I posted links to scientific studies supporting my position. Your bunch pretends I didn't. But it is your side making claim after claim with no links or evidence.

  11. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    29,322

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    gdots personal insult aside, I did look at his 'references' - nearly a decade old, with a lot of implication but no verification of the thesis. My suspicion - there is much less 'genetics' than social involved in this 'disgust' emotion. It mostly depends on how you're raised, what your peers believe, your society.

    Insults aside.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  12. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,082

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    Links?

    I posted links to scientific studies supporting my position. Your bunch pretends I didn't. But it is your side making claim after claim with no links or evidence.
    Short memory or what?
    I have repeatedly posted links to the Greeks, and have referred to several TV documentaries about tribes practicing various forms of gay sex before they settle down to marriage. If you are ignorant of those, you are just ignorant.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  13. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    12,791

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    No, I am assuming a normal of a few sexual partners, mostly in serial monogamous relationships. The average human only pair bonds a handful of times in a lifetime. "Wasting" any of those on a mate that will not reproduce with you obviously leads to less offspring than the next monkey.

    Don't fall for the trope of the promiscuous gay man, Tom.
    Who mentioned "gay" or "men"? Not me--that appears to be your obsession. I'm talking about the adaptive advantages for multiple partners, no matter the gender:

    ...the number of offspring produced by a female increases with the number of males she mates with. That finding runs directly counter to the theory there is no benefit for a “promiscuous” female.

    Modern studies have demonstrated this is true in a broad range of speciesfemales that mate with more than one male produce more young.
    You apparently do not accept that promiscuous sexual behavior is common, and provides evolutionary advantages. Why do you hate science, George?

    But this next bit is hilarious:

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    Given how strong the sexual urge is, to the point that people will use inanimate objects to satiate it, a warm living body of someone you already like, able to make you feel so good if you let it, is too much temptation unless there is an instinctive rejection of it.
    Baxter pointed out the elementary failure in logic here days ago, on an earlier thread:

    if "disgust" were all about assuring reproduction, then men would be disgusted by women who are not ovulating. not to mention, disgusted by their own hairy palms.
    You appear to not even realize you are arguing contradictory claims to support your speculation:

    1. Sexual activity is so potentially pleasurable that the likelihood of settling for non-reproductive sexual activities is a threat to the species' survival. And that, as a direct result of this threat, natural selection must have built in an innate disgust reaction to non-reproductive sexual activities.

    And:

    2. Self-stimulation is likewise powerful-- "to the point that people will use inanimate objects to satiate it" (your words). Which means, logically, that there can be no disgust reaction. As, in fact, there isn't:

    78 percent of adults in the world masturbate, including: 96 percent of British men, 93 percent of German men, and 92 percent of American men; 78 percent of British women, 76 percent of German women, and 76 percent of American women.


    Surely masturbation is just as much a waste of reproductive opportunity as same-sex activities, right?

    Tom
    Last edited by WI-Tom; 06-29-2022 at 12:18 PM.
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  14. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    16,645

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Short memory or what?
    I have repeatedly posted links to the Greeks, and have referred to several TV documentaries about tribes practicing various forms of gay sex before they settle down to marriage. If you are ignorant of those, you are just ignorant.
    So some Greeks and tribal people practice gay sex, and some societies tolerate it. Big deal. All that applies to modern America and Brazil.

    What you have to prove is this:


    There is lots of evidence, from antiquity and from recently discovered tribal societies, that show no aversion, but no evidence that aversion, even slight aversion, was universal.
    There is plenty of evidence for societies with lots of aversion - again, look no further than America of Brazil. But you have failed to provide any evidence at all for a society with no aversion.

  15. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    16,645

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    Baxter pointed out the elementary failure in logic here days ago, on an earlier thread:

    if "disgust" were all about assuring reproduction, then men would be disgusted by women who are not ovulating. not to mention, disgusted by their own hairy palms.



    Baxter proved that his logic is flawed as ever, because:

    1) men can't tell when women are ovulating. If they could, they would not feel sexual attraction when they are not, just like so many other animals who can tell.

    2) No one pair bonds with his hand, and no one would rather masturbate than have actual sex. Probably not even Baxter.

  16. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Farmington, Oregon
    Posts
    19,994

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    Baxter proved that his logic is flawed as ever, because:

    1) men can't tell when women are ovulating. If they could, they would not feel sexual attraction when they are not, just like so many other animals who can tell.

    2) No one pair bonds with his hand, and no one would rather masturbate than have actual sex. Probably not even Baxter.
    that's exactly the point. human males can't tell. for a reason.

    in other words, non-reproductive sex is....wait for it...adaptive for homo sapiens sapiens.
    Last edited by L.W. Baxter; 06-29-2022 at 02:51 PM.

  17. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    16,645

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by L.W. Baxter View Post
    that's exactly the point. human males can't tell. for a reason.

    in other words, non-reproductive sex is....wait for it...adaptive for homo sapiens sapiens.
    Yes, as long as it is with a mate with whom they also reproduce. Because that non-reproductive sex strengthens the pair bond and thus keeps the father around to care for the offspring.

    It doesn't work if there are no offspring, Baxter. Nothing is adaptive if there are no offspring.

  18. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Farmington, Oregon
    Posts
    19,994

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    Yes, as long as it is with a mate with whom they also reproduce. Because that non-reproductive sex strengthens the pair bond and thus keeps the father around to care for the offspring.

    It doesn't work if there are no offspring, Baxter. Nothing is adaptive if there are no offspring.
    nature is a good deal more complex than that, professor dot.

    we have settled that non-reproductive sex is adaptive for human beings.

    in your mind, the only kind that could serve the propogation of genes is the type approved by missionaries. in your mind.

    you never met a gay or lesbian with a genetic offspring?

    hell, a couple generations ago, most gays and lesbians had genetic offspring, in our culture.

  19. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    16,645

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by L.W. Baxter View Post

    you never met a gay or lesbian with a genetic offspring?

    hell, a couple generations ago, most gays and lesbians had genetic offspring, in our culture.
    Sure, because they were forced into heterosexual relationships.

    You keep proving my point for me...

  20. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Farmington, Oregon
    Posts
    19,994

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    You keep proving my point for me...
    you keep proving my point for me.

  21. #56
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    the hills
    Posts
    66,711

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    My hands never left my arms.

  22. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Farmington, Oregon
    Posts
    19,994

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by LeeG View Post
    My hands never left my arms.
    hands? as in, plural?

    that's anomalous.

    george, get the calipers, we need a measurement!

  23. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    12,791

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    2) No one pair bonds with his hand, and no one would rather masturbate than have actual sex. Probably not even Baxter.
    First, you're ignoring the fact that promiscuous sexual behavior and multiple mates--and not monogamous pair bonds--is most advantageous from an evolutionary perspective. So all your talk about pair bonds is irrelevant.

    Second, no one with an attraction to opposite-sex partners, and without an attraction to same-sex partners, would choose a same-sex partner over an opposite-sex partner. The lack of attraction is sufficient to defuse any possible "threat" posed by non-reproductive sex. No aversion is necessary. Occam's razor.

    Thirdly, you earlier claimed that the physical sensations of sex are so powerful that any orifice will do, which is why an aversion to non-reproductive sex is necessary. Even "inanimate objects" (your words) will do. So by your own logic, there should be an aversion to "inanimate objects" or masturbation. Which, there isn't.

    Which, I'll stick with "George is wrong."

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  24. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    16,645

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    No, Tom.

    Pair bonds are far from irrelevant. They are central to the reproduction of our species. It takes two to raise a child. We are the ultimate K strategist. A little bit of promiscuity sometimes may be rewarded by evolution, but in general we are programmed to pair bond at least until the kid is weaned. The stone age guy who acted like a bonobo had most of his offspring die in infancy.

    Aversion is unnecessary? Then why do you feel an aversion to bestiality?

    In fact the mechanism is quite common. For example, we are not simply drawn to foods we like. We are also disgusted by things we shouldn't eat. It is not enough to like ripe apples, you must also be repelled by rotten ones.

    I already explained about masturbation. But perhaps some people do pair bond with their hand, and prefer it to an actual mate...

  25. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    12,791

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    No, Tom.

    Pair bonds are far from irrelevant. They are central to the reproduction of our species.
    It pays to read carefully. I didn't say pair bonds are irrelevant. I said:

    So all your talk about pair bonds is irrelevant.
    Because, if any sexual activity that did not involve pair bonds was a threat to the propagation of the species (your basic claim in all this), then by your logic there would be an innate aversion to every piece of it. Is there?

    1. Masturbation? No. Clearly not.
    2. Promiscuous sex and multiple partners? No. In fact, quite the opposite--the more mates a female has, the more offspring she produces.
    3. Same-sex activity? Here you leap from two "no" answers to a yes.

    Eh, nothing here is science, George. It's you trying to claim the mantle of respectability of science to engage in pure unsupported speculation designed to excuse homophobic attitudes and beliefs. I'm not arguing that's your motivation. It's just the effect of what you're doing. Maybe it's time to ask yourself why.

    Because Baxter was on the mark. What you're doing is akin to explaining, in painstaking levels of detail, in science-y language, to an audience that includes Black people, why white people have a built-in innate disgust reaction to the appearance of Black people.

    That would never fly. Why do you think what you are doing does?

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  26. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    16,645

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    if any sexual activity that did not involve pair bonds was a threat to the propagation of the species (your basic claim in all this),
    (rolleyes)

    No, no, no...

    Sexual activity that does involve pair bonds but cannot result in reproduction is what diminishes fitness.

    You got it all backwards, you see...

    So all your talk about pair bonds is irrelevant.

  27. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    61,522

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    FWIW, the 'average' human pattern (varies a lot, obviously) seems to be something like formal official male-female pairs, with responsibility for children, but with quite a bit of unofficial activity on the side. Second-most-common seems to be that high-status males have multiple wives.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  28. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    12,791

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    George,

    I'll hold off further responses to your motivated reasoning until you address this:

    Eh, nothing here is science, George. It's you trying to claim the mantle of respectability of science to engage in pure unsupported speculation designed to excuse homophobic attitudes and beliefs. I'm not arguing that's your motivation. It's just the effect of what you're doing. Maybe it's time to ask yourself why.

    Because Baxter was on the mark. What you're doing is akin to explaining, in painstaking levels of detail, in science-y language, to an audience that includes Black people, why white people have a built-in innate disgust reaction to the appearance of Black people.

    That would never fly. Why do you think what you are doing does?
    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  29. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    58,082

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    FWIW, the 'average' human pattern (varies a lot, obviously) seems to be something like formal official male-female pairs, with responsibility for children, but with quite a bit of unofficial activity on the side. Second-most-common seems to be that high-status males have multiple wives.
    Not to mention the Chinese walking marriages, and that Himalayan hill tribe where the ground can only support a family if two brothers work the land and share a wife. Then, thanks to modern medicine, there are all those same-sex couples bringing up children conceived or fathered by one of the couple.
    There is no single correct model.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  30. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    16,645

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    George,

    I'll hold off further responses to your motivated reasoning until you address this:
    I'll take that as you conceding that I got the science right, but still objecting to the conclusion on political grounds.

  31. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Farmington, Oregon
    Posts
    19,994

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    decency is now political. if you favor decency you are woke.

  32. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    61,522

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Not to mention the Chinese walking marriages, and that Himalayan hill tribe where the ground can only support a family if two brothers work the land and share a wife. Then, thanks to modern medicine, there are all those same-sex couples bringing up children conceived or fathered by one of the couple. There is no single correct model.
    Certainly. I said nothing about 'correct'. I was talking about what's most common, and yes, there's lots of variation.

    Personally, I'm perfectly fine with people making whatever arrangements they think best, as long they're voluntary and more or less equal, and any children are well taken care of. What works for me might not work for someone else, and who am I to dictate?
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  33. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    12,791

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by George. View Post
    I'll take that as you conceding that I got the science right, but still objecting to the conclusion on political grounds.
    And I take this as further evidence that sticking with "George is wrong" is the right course of action.

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  34. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cantão - Brazil
    Posts
    16,645

    Default Re: George Is Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by L.W. Baxter View Post
    decency is now political.
    Decency was always political. It is the word often evoked by homophobes to justify their bigotry. I am surprised to see someone as woke as yourself yielding it in lieu of a reasoned argument.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •