Appearance? I think not soliloquy boy. :naughty:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
I'm just comfortable in my education, you are not. That is your issue- a Busyman motif if you will, which pops up from time to time wearing various outfits.
Printable View
Appearance? I think not soliloquy boy. :naughty:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
I'm just comfortable in my education, you are not. That is your issue- a Busyman motif if you will, which pops up from time to time wearing various outfits.
What does "learned appearance" mean.
I'm surprised manmer hasn't jumped on that one.
Wears a white wig?
My Dads a Bus Driver, and he sits on his arse all day btw :blink:
Appearing learned usually through googling.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
"Appearing learned" is just gobbledegook. Can you Americans not learn to speak the language. It would be "appearing educated".Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Why does it have to be "American's"?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Anywho, it was originally a hobbes' original...from way back.
I see nothing wrong with the phrase "appearing learned".
Perhaps it doesn't scan in a Scots accent.
Edit: btw, are you sure your gobbledegook wasn't gobbledygook? :shifty:
Ever since I mentioned Vodka with Apple Pucker, hobble has been awol for weeks at a time.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
...and when he does show up he's been fubar.(the aforementioned homeless dog thread)
Now I have to get him on the Henny (I like my Apple Martini's better though).
[QUOTE=Busyman]Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I fully support everything I said in that thread.
The initial post concerned a person who was both homeless and a beggar, using a dog to make a few extra bucks. A dog that will likely be trashed when his cuteness is gone. I stated that these people chose this homeless existence as a lifestyle.
That is the reality.
Some people can lose their homes due to bad luck financially or natural disasters, but these people DON'T turn to begging.
It is unclear to me why I needed to clarify such an obvious distinction. It seems that some are more interested in taking offense than attempting to understand why one posts as he does.
That is why explaining ones potential bias is so important and why in another thread, I mentioned my fathers career.
Have you people ever heard of a straw horse?
It is a specious argument about a subject that obsures the real motivation of the author. Instead of telling you why he is really offended, he creates the straw horse as his pretend offense as a diversion, as he is too insecure to reveal the real reason why he is upset.
We all "google" for convenience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
I used it to find an article on homosexuality.
I don't really deal in that area so I am not up on the latest story, but I have complete understanding of the inheritence of genetic traits. Sure, the authors location on the genome was not supported, but there was no conclusion that genetics was not the cause, just a quibble about where it was.
Just like Einstein died 20 years before his theory of relativity was experimentally proven, he like I, understand what we are talking about and are confident that it is just a matter of time that we are proven correct.
A single study does not a Googlemaster-make. I understand what I am talking about, and the exact genetic locus is not really an issue. Being "gay" is genetic/hormonal and not a concious choice. That is 100% accurate.
What astounds me is that Busyman feels that he is in a position to make the call about who is legit and who is not. A man who has no formal training in the area of biology and has only popular exposure to the literature.
What extreme arrogance, no?
[QUOTE=hobbes]Ffs hobbes, I didn't need a real explanation. I'm fucking around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
But since you mentioned it....
Your explanation of the why is out in left field. Sometimes the reasons people say certain things are just that and there is nothing to read between the lines.
To be extreme...it's as if I said "black" and you come with "you meant white" and your rationale would be due to something like my age, race, height, blahblahblah...
I have become very much in tune with "the minds of people" and with how people sprout off bullshit but.....
Sometimes it's just simply.....
"black"
[QUOTE=Busyman]But, I understand that. I wanted to point out when it is not. The offense in that thread was specious bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
I missed this post initially...Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
Extreme arrogance?
You say being gay is genetic/hormonal based on the "latest" study which is unproven.
That's just fucking stupid.
It pigeon holes anyone who "feels" a certain way to a genetic/hormonal trait.
That's just fucking stupid.
So how the fuck is something that's unproven "100% accurate".
I don't have a choice in how I feel (which includes what I like) but your statement
"Being "gay" is genetic/hormonal and not a concious choice."
is only half right and that's the latter half.
I'll put it to you a better way....
ANYONE is capable of being gay.
It all depends on environment and timing.
This doesn't just apply to being gay. It applies to everything from what color you like, to what sport you like.
A child with gay parents may or may not turn out gay
A family of basketball players may have that 4th child that may or may not even like watching the sport.
The boy that wants to mimic mommy and dress in skirts at age 11 is hardly case for "he has gay genetics/hormones".
You lot are trying to pin something you will never pin....
Why every person likes what they like. :dry:
[QUOTE=hobbes]Oic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
You came off as arrogant though. You were telling everyone that your rationale was positively the correct one when in actuality, it was far-fetched.
I've buried my head in books most of my life and been around the same folk, from TAG in my early childhood to "table" members...but many lacked an acute creative side which I feel is needed to open up to a real understanding of the mind.
Book knowledge is great but one must really buckle down to really understand people.
Quote:
You say being gay is genetic/hormonal based on the "latest" study which is unproven.
That's just fucking stupid.
I made my decision based on my understanding of biology and genetics. I then went to the web to look for articles on the subject.
So my opinion was formed based on my experience and knowledge, not based on a google search. The google search was to provide something that anyone could look at. In googling we find that my opinion is supported by both the American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association.
The time from suspecting that something is true until actual confirmation can be lengthy, as per the Einstein example. He knew he was right as he had confidence in his theory, but science failed to prove him right until he had been dead and buried 20 years.
Genetics determines many of or likes/dislikes but it is so automatic that we don't even understand or notice this. We like to think we are making a choice, but there really is no choice to be made.
Why does steak smell good? A choice, no-genetics-it is a good source of energy.
Everything we do is influenced by the programming of our brains, which is genetic.
Do we have to learn pain? Did we see mommy get hurt and want to be hurt as well? No, it is automatic. But guess what, pain does not exist, that is a programmed perception. An inherited self defense to keep stupid animals from continuing to do things that will kill them.
Some people cannot feel pain, it is a genetic/developmental disorder.
For some things, the genetic/developmental link is staight forward. For other more complex behaviors the link is not so apparent. As humans we crave the feeling of autonomy, so we like to think that things that we do are decisions that we conciously make, but we are often deluding ourselves. It was right there in our blueprints and we are just acting as planned.
:[/QUOTE]
I agree with just about everything you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
However...
Is somewhat flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
Everyone doesn't think steak smells good. :dry:
I don't know why you mention choice either. I sure don't. You can't choose feelings.
this topic is rolling into the field of natural instincts
dont get it twisted
Yup. I have the natural instinct to fuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Money Fist
I have no choice in what attracts me and have a choice in who I fuck.
What attracts me can change.
[QUOTE=Busyman]I do :blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
I don't think that the fact that steak smells good is proof of anything you've inherited.
It could be, as the human race has been using fire so long now that the smell of charred flesh has become hard-coded into whatever genes there are that govern our instincts. But the fact that there are quite a few people who don't like the smell, and the fact that it's so easy to build up an aversion against if you turn vegetarian, points to that it should be something reliant on association.
Most of us have eaten solid foods since before we could remember, that's ample time to learn how to associate certain generic smells to something positive, without us ever knowing we have, in later life.
As for sexual preference, what I know has been proven is that we, operating on our senses of smell (phermones) and sight, pick individuals that A) have genetic material most different to ours, most especially the genes that govern our immune defense, as that makes for a better immune system in a possible child. This is also a safe-guard against inbreeding. B) We pick individuals we either associate with something positive (some trait our parents might have had, for instance) or who we find exotic (this again promotes diversity, although people do tend to avoid something too exotic, I think, though this is just a personal observation), sometimes opposites attract, and sometimes we seek comfort in that which is familiar. C) We avoid assymetry as far as we can, as an assymetrical body-shape or a face can be a tell-tale sign of illness or damage which would make for a bad partner.
To complicate things further we can override all of these instincts (in some they aren't working properly, think of parents that abuse their children and such) if the situation calls for it, say if our only means of genetic survival means we have to mate with someone who doesn't fit all the criteria, maybe because the population is too small.
Now, in the case of homosexuality (which I'm not trying to attach any positive or negative value to here), I've never heard of any purely genetic mechanisms that would make us chose same-sex partners above others. I've read that there is no such thing as absolute heterosexuality, other primates use sex as a means of bonding and recreation, and not just heterosexual sex, but nothing I've ever read points to exclusive homosexuality passing from parent to child on a purely genetic basis.
What I do believe, is that the percentage of (not just openly) homosexual individuals in the population changes with how acceptable it is, culturally. And seeing as the potential for it may be something we all carry with us, it's a more or less unconcious choice we can make, and if it's, for example, something our culture, and perhaps our parents seem to find all right, then more of us will make that choice.
The only real genetic predispositions we have for sex that I know of affect procreation, and the creation of the best possible offspring (A, B & C), and of course recreation/bonding (the primates). Far too generic, I think, to classify someone's genetic material as decidedly gay.
[QUOTE=JPaul]Ok thanks for chiming in, everyone. :blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
I agree with most of what you said except most of the above.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
In A), where has it been proven that we choose folks based different genetic material? A man wants to jump in pussy (for the most part). While it's ideal not to fuck your sister or first cousin to make sure there isn't a baby with 3 eyeballs, one wouldn't know it in a blind study.
In B), people choose others for mishmash of reasons.
I agree with C) but mainly because MOST of us tend to avoid people that look weird to us....not necessarily signs of illness.
We can override instincts but I don't think A, B, AND C are really instincts but are cultural phenomena.
It was just an example.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
Let us take the opposite approach- feces.
We perceive it to smell "bad" because it is nutritionally bereft and contains chemical which are harmful. Anybody mistake a toilet filled with feces for a
large bowl of soup?
On the other hand, rabbits eat their own poop. Do you think they do this because they have a concious understanding that there are important vitamins in their feces. No, they are programmed to eat them. Not all of them, just the ones that smell "good" (contain nutrients).
There is no absolute good or bad smell, babies don't need to be taught not to eat their poop. It is programmed. It is no different than a tendon response, when the doctor hits your knee with a reflex hammer. Stimulus in, reflex out.
Again, the steak situation was just an example of a general concept not an absolute, that we have instinctive responses to certain smells.
Things that are not essential to survival , such as eating steak, can be modified by life experiences. I got sick on potato chips one year and stopped eating them for the next 5. Some people died of food poisoning at Jack in the Box when I was a kid, I still don't eat there.
It is called "learned aversion". Steak can be substituted by many things, so it is not essential.
But how many people do you know that won't drink water? Who taught you "thirst"? When you're dehydrated, who taught you to drink water and not maple syrup. How come only water "quenches" that thirst.
Well then, why doesn't water smell/taste? It is chemically too small and it is always present to some degree in the mouth. Something that is stimulating a receptor all the time, tends to extinguish the response to that stimulus.
And as Snny pointed out, we respond to stimuli that we don't even conciously perceive. Phermones go below our radar, but we resond to them just the same.
We are all just robots in denial.
[QUOTE=Busyman]What be chiming in.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
You made a sweeping generalization, which was patently incorrect. I refuted it based on my own personal liking for the smell. I can also state that I know several people who like the smell of steak, both raw and cooked.
You were wrong, just accept it for once and move on with your life. It isn't always a competition.
It's just what some scientists whose work I read said, maybe they are all wrong, though. Who teh feck knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Most of what I wrote there is based on empirical data gathered through (hopefully) appropriately conducted research though, and some of it is apparently based on statistics.
If you are interested, there have been a couple of tv-series about the mechanisms of physical attraction, both on the discovery channel and on bbc.
@hobbes: I hadn't considered the rabbit poop, but you may have a point there. Regarding our own droppings (we're just animals really, so I might as well call it that) I recall being told (think it was in psychology-class) that infants find all unfamiliar smells frightening/bad, and that smells that become familiar become good, if we start to associate them with something good.
In theory, following this, since we don't have any use for it, we'd never learn how to associate the smell of it with something good, and therefore our perception of it would either remain that it was bad, or we'd be neutral to it as it isn't a threat, either. After that it would be a matter of culture. But all of this is debateable, of course.
Your point about water is interesting too, it's definitely part of our programming to want to drink, the suction reflex babies have proves this, the question is whether we can ever say that our drinking water in particular is something we inherited or not, maybe someone might say that we learned to want that particular fluid (I'm with you there though, I think human beings have an instinct for it, people certainly seem to respond to the sight of water in a certain way).
Thirst is definitely normally a part of human programming. Incidentally, I was born without it, as I don't really feel thirst. I can't tell you how many times my mother have had to tell me to drink something when I was a kid, nowadays I tend to drink at regular intervals (I think I've learned to pick up on when I haven't drunk enough, somehow, but it isn't the same thing as regular thirst as I understand it) without having to be reminded about it, but I had to learn it.
Cool steak wasn't a great example. Food, water, and shit are better ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
The type of food one likes (and even water for that matter nowadays) makes us not so robotic.
[QUOTE=JPaul]Great, a JPaulism. :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Ok then I was wrong.
Everyone does think steak smells good. :blink:
It's just that some conclusions are made because they fit and necessarily because it's right.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
I mean I choose someone based on genetic material?
Maybe you are right, as long as that a good amount of that genetic material is in her ass. :naughty:
[QUOTE=Busyman]I think you'll find that those and such as those have agreed that it is being mankerized.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
The JPaulism is a fantasy, an urban myth if you will. It has only ever existed in the head of those who cannot achieve that which you so easily accomplished.
The admission of fallibility.
Why are people using the fact that different people like different to suggest that proves genes have nothing to do with liking or disliking things when we all have uniqueness in our genetics?
Genes are not purely the way they are in the individual because of what is passed on by parents. Some genes can be missing or "corrupted". There is no absolute.
So an argument against hobbes "smell=food" point because not everyone likes the smell of steak is flawed because we don't all have identical genetics...similar yes but not identical...we are not clones.
Behaviour can be instinctive and learned, but it is our genetics that decide how our brain develops and therefore how we learn. Some people can operate a computer with almost instinctive ease but not a stove.
Why do some people like some things others don't like?....because we are not genetically identical
[QUOTE=JPaul]JPaulisms were around before mankerisms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
I know 'cause I came up with teh word (JPaulism, at least on here) and manker was no where around.
Who did that? :huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
[QUOTE=Busyman]:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Have you reason to believe it is used elsewhere.
It might have been me, I can't understand what it means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Tho' to be fair I often struggle when a sentence contains 33 words and one punctuation mark.
It's in her jeans, like :unsure:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
The password is:Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
:dog: Run-On :dog:
;)Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
I like...big butts....and I cannot lie..................
A woman with a nice shapely fat ass brings out the primal in me. :devil:
I just want to pull an all-nighter,
You pull your "all-nighter" if you want mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Or anybody else's for that matter.
Now, I'm not sure if this is the article hobbes was talking about that he ended up Googling... Regardless, this one's from Time.
:shuriken:Quote:
If you want to stir up trouble at a party-or better still, a bar-try bringing up the question of whether homosexuality is something people are born with or something they choose. The issue has always been controversial, and it's currently at the center of a political debate in the States as well, thanks to the question of gay marriage. As a result, whenever science has something to say about the biology of sexual preference, it's bound to make headlines.
That's exactly what happened [the week of May 16th]. Researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden who had earlier shown that hormonelike pheromones stimulate the human hypothalamus-a part of the brain that governs sexual arousal-took the experiment one provocative step further. Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they reported that gay men don't respond to the chemicals the same way as straight men do.
"It clearly substantiates the idea that there's a biological substrate for sexual orientation," says Dean Hamer, a geneticist at the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the authour of Science of Desire: The Gay Gene and the Biology of Behaviour. "This is a highly significant result."
The experiment was elegantly simple. Just as they had in a series of tests in 2001, the Swedish scientists isolated two substances suspected of being human pheomones-an estrogen-like chemical distilled from women's urine and a tesosterone-related chemical derived from male sweat. Using both MRI and PET scans, the researchers found that women registered the female pheromone in the smell-processing part of the brain. But when women sniffed male pheromones, their hypothalamuses lit up as well. In men, the results were exactly opposite.
All that had been shown before. What was new in the recent experiments was the inclusion of gay men. "Gay men are a great control group for this kind of study," says Hamer, "because they're pretty much the same as straight men except for that one factor." Sure enough, when the Swedish scientists ran the experiment this time, the results were striking: when gay men were exposed to male pheromones, their hypothalamuses lit up just like a woman's. Female hormones did nothing for them.
What the study doesn't show, however-despite what some scientists claimed-is that sexual preference is biologically hardwired and thus present from birth. That idea is pretty much accepted by most gays and by many biologists as well. But it is refuted by those-generally on the religious right-who have a stake in believing that homosexuality is a personal choice rather than an inborn trait.
Even though last week's study strengthens the argument that desire may be triggered in part by chemical signals, it doesn't necessarily prove that gay men are preordained to pick up on male pheromones. It could also be that their brains learn to respond to them over time and with experience.
You might be able to test the proposition, says Hamer, by doing the experiment on people at different ages, to see if the response changes after early childhood. Nobody has tried that yet. The Swedish team is currently working on a related study to test how lesbians respond to female pheromones. Last week's paper also can't answer the question of how important a role pheromones play in desire. Conventional wisdom used to be that people could not detect them at all. That's because the vomero-nasal organ, a pheromone-sensitive structure in the nose that's very active in mice, for example, is largely vestigial in humans. Although it now seems that pheromones are somehow involved in arousal, their role could still be minimal.
-Michael D. Lemonick
You will have to excuse my off topic comment here.
One could almost think the article was a joke, with a very subtle wink.
Michael D. Lemonick
Lets put that "D" where it should be.
Micheal Lemondick
Then we have the expression "sucks lemons"
So his name would read : Michael sucksdick
Hmmm, coincidence. :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy:
Who made that coffee, it tasted funny? Hey, this isn't my computer. :unsure: