Human Sexuality

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Sachaztan]

Interesting talk about human sexuality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ygq7F4TX4

[nikomas]

Don't mention sexuality, you might scare the Americans 

[WildZontar]

Don't mention sexuality, you might scare the Americans 

Lawl.

[aeroblade56]

Don't mention sexuality, you might scare the Americans 

No it will scare zontar.

[WildZontar]

No it will scare zontar.

I'm not sure how to respond to this 

[JustCarnage]

I wouldn't consider it a talk, I consider it to be more of a "Hey, look, I point out data I've found from other people and talk about it so that you'll go purchase my book." It's a mere regurgitation of what is already known and he doesn't do an effective job of disproving Darwin's theory of sexual selection. He's a psychologist trying to interpolate with several scattered data points in the field of evolutionary biology. He does bring up a few interesting facts but nothing to really take away in my opinion.

[Sachaztan]

I wouldn't consider it a talk, I consider it to be more of a "Hey, look, I point out data I've found from other people and talk about it so that you'll go purchase my book." It's a mere regurgitation of what is already known and he doesn't do an effective job of disproving Darwin's theory of sexual selection. He's a psychologist trying to interpolate with several scattered data points in the field of evolutionary biology. He does bring up a few interesting facts but nothing to really take away in my opinion.

Sounds like you really didn't watch it all.

Either that or you watched it all yet somehow completely missed the point. I mean, him trying to disprove sexual selection wtf?

[acker]

This...actually makes sense. Certainly fits what I've learned in Sociology.

Come to think of it, it appears to make sense from the evolutionary biology perspective as well. Maybe. Still thinking...




One way or another, it's certainly food for thought.

[Spartan_Marine88]

I have seen to much evidence from to many sides all with convincing evidence for monogamy, polygamy, just straight up fucking etc. Do what you feel is right, because the information used in these arguments (for all sides) often is about as exact as the whole number 24 thing.

But personally i always thought Homosexuality was natures tool to end dangerous or un-needed genetic traits. (but no scientist will go near that with a 10 foot pole)

[acker]

But personally i always thought Homosexuality was natures tool to end dangerous or un-needed genetic traits. (but no scientist will go near that with a 10 foot pole)

Dangerous and unneeded to whom? The parents? The community? Humanity as a whole? If the answer to your implication is anything other than "the individual in question" (or, more specifically, the genes of the individual in question that may or may not be replicated for a future generation), you're wrong. Evolution simply does not work the way you're implying it to work.*



However, let's assume for once that some deity or alien force is driving evolution on the greater humanity level rather than the individual level and the entire scientific community has been too stupid to notice. Which brings us to two points.

1: If no scientist has gone near that question with a ten foot pole, why would you believe it?

2: If it's simply to eliminate defective genes from humanity's gene pool, why on earth would you waste so many resources on a defective product that still has a chance of reproducing instead of simply miscarrying it as soon as possible?

*There's a qualifier here for organisms that, on average, share more gene content with their sisters or cousins than they do with their offspring or their parents. Or some combination of the above sentence. Needless to say, humans do not fall into this category.

[JustCarnage]

I watched about 95% of it, skipping over a few of the questions at the end. He was going to name his book with regard to Darwin's sex life and how it influenced Darwin to get sexual selection wrong (at least in terms of humans). In terms of sociology, I'd consider it arguable either way since society is a significant factor. Scientists should stick to their own fields and not dabble in others which they are not well acquainted with (unless properly supported by credible peers, ex co-authored book). Argue psychology and social impact but don't start bringing in evolutionary biology.

[smurfORnot]

But personally i always thought Homosexuality was natures tool to end dangerous or un-needed genetic traits. (but no scientist will go near that with a 10 foot pole)

yea,because all those gay people are dangerous/stupid/sick/monstrous/not good Christians etc etc. while on other hand so much fucked up parents who abuse/are fucking stupid/defected/sick etc etc. but straight,don't have any 'bad' traits. Yea,kinda makes sense why scientist don't wanna touch it.


Watched 10minutes. Seems quite interesting,but I dont have time right now,gotta go to college,but I will definitely watch it later!

[Spartan_Marine88]

Dangerous and unneeded to whom?

Fuck i meant things like cancer numbnuts, or writing off a trait that potentially gives terrible skin disease.

What acker fails to realize that while a miscarriage might have solved the issue, we got things like modern science fixing such issues for us.


In no way am i trying to say whats right or wrong, i just don't believe that it is for anyone to say what is right or wrong when it comes to human sexuality.

[Sachaztan]

Fuck i meant things like cancer numbnuts, or writing off a trait that potentially gives terrible skin disease.

What acker fails to realize that while a miscarriage might have solved the issue, we got things like modern science fixing such issues for us.

*Special to Acker Evolution: we still really don't have a clue about it just many theories some more viable then others*

What's funny is that you admitted yourself that no scientists supports that notion and yet you talk about it as if your belief in it has anything to do with science...

There's nothing wrong with believing in things without any kind of scientific backing. Sure it bothers me personally but religious freedom is a must in any advanced society. This kind of faith is also present outside religion so it's much bigger than that. Homoeopathy, dowsing, ufology etc all have plenty of supporters.

But for the love of god don't pretend your beliefs have anything to do with science.

[Spartan_Marine88]

But for the love of god don't pretend your beliefs have anything to do with science.

My beliefs have a lot to do with science, but I forget that people like you need to have your hand held in anything other then an elementary debate and have the basics laid out for you. I just don't have the time or patience to explain it or to go dig up all the examples.

What bothers ME personally is how unscientific scientists are when it comes to religion, but hey thats another talk for another day.

[Sachaztan]

My beliefs have a lot to do with science, but I forget that people like you need to have your hand held in anything other then an elementary debate and have the basics laid out for you. I just don't have the time or patience to explain it or to go dig up all the examples.

lololololol

[3rdCondor]

Sach, I'm ashamed to admit it, but you've done a much better job at trolling than me. Congratulations, you've earned this.

[Sachaztan]

Sach, I'm ashamed to admit it, but you've done a much better job at trolling than me. Congratulations, you've earned this.

lolololololololol