Sexual Biology Part 2

[Heterogenic]

Im not anti-gay anymore than im anti-any other disability, if a woman is born with a clitoris but no hole or a man born with a prostate but no penis they very rightfully deserve to be gay if they wish and should never be told they cant, my problem is with sexually disabled people procreating and then promoting sexual disability as an equal and healthy way of living, also blacks dont choose to have melanin but sexual behavior is always a choice so it is very offensive to compare homosexuality to skin color

 

Everything is dictated by physics, arrousal is entirely physical and healthy people can become arroused with no visual stimulation, a woman who cannot keep a clitoral-bulb erection for men is only impotent same for a man who cannot keep an erection for women, most men are capable of keeping an erection for the very rare but still existent-sufficiently female-looking trans males until realizing theres no vagina (if they have tunnelvision), and most women are capable of sustaining a clitbulb erection after sufficient clitoral foreplay regardless of gender

 

Smart females will realize men offer skenes/prostate stimulation combined with clitoral mechanics and that a mans face from the cunnilingus angle is only a bigger verson of a womans while a stronger lower face tends to indicate a larger penis, keep in mind men have stronger more precise tongues

 

Men should look for a slightly thickened labia minora and slightly raised labia majora which are the two ‘mounds’ surrounding the vagina indicating clitoral bulb erection which means shes ready for sex

 

Sadly many men believe women dont want them because they arent 'tough’ enough while the women turn around and go for other women, most women want a nonconfrontational disciplined man capable of protecting them

 

Bonus: college is becoming obsolete, student loan forgiveness will only further bankrupt the country punishing those who decided against taking on hundreds of thousands in debt to learn what they couldve learned online for free

[Super Polymath]

None of this has anything to do with anything.

 

Certainly not biology. Who people choose to boink is not as simple as biology. More of a psychological thing, which really is more social psychology. And some of these points are incomprehensible, the ones I read at least.

 

If anything this thread falls under impossible-to-follow rationalizations on personal vexes.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Heterogenic]

The mind is entirely dictated by energy, your thoughts are made of little photons flying through your brain, if you cant understand then just move along so the people with more neurons can discuss

[A-wal]

You think some sexual orientations are a disability. :fool: Black people don't choose the colour of their skin, it's not their fault. Women need a man's protection. Oh dear. We've got sexism, racism and er, sexual orientationism.

 

Did your wife leave you for a black women?

[exchemist]

None of this has anything to do with anything.

 

Certainly not biology. Who people choose to boink is not as simple as biology. More of a psychological thing, which really is more social psychology. And some of these points are incomprehensible, the ones I read at least.

 

If anything this thread falls under impossible-to-follow rationalizations on personal vexes.

Agree. I've reported it. 

[Buffy]

The poor dear has been banned. Leaving the post up for a while so you can post justified derision.

 

I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an *** of yourself, :phones:

Buffy

[A-wal]

The poor dear has been banned.

What for, being batshit crazy?

 

So many emotis now, it's hard to find the right one, and that one's broken. It's different and looks a lot better in the list. I wonder if I could tell a story?

 

:friends:

 

 

:shok: :shok:

 

 

 

 

 

:applause: :applause:

[A-wal]

Somewhere in Wales:

 

 

 

 

 

 

:give_rose:

 

 

:esmoking:

 

:xmas_sheep:

 

:0318: 

[Buffy]

What for, being batshit crazy?

 

 

Oh no, not at all. Batshit crazy is okay. That's what you're demanding all scientists accept, right?

 

No, it's for "not following the directions of a moderator/admin." Let's all take a moment to ruminate on that.

 

 

And although I broke a lot of laws as a teenager, I straightened out immediately upon turning eighteen, when I realized the state had a legal right to execute me, :phones:

Buffy

[A-wal]

Oh no, not at all. Batshit crazy is okay. That's what you're demanding all scientists accept, right?

Er no. I'm demanding that scientists drop their own batshit crazy models such as materialism (proven wrong by QM), dark energy (proven wrong by Halton Arp showing that quasars being physically connected to low red-shift galaxies) and the big bang (proven wrong by distant galaxies being older than the supposed age of the universe).

[Buffy]

Er no. I'm demanding that scientists drop their own batshit crazy models such as materialism (proven wrong by QM), dark energy (proven wrong by Halton Arp showing that quasars being physically connected to low red-shift galaxies) and the big bang (proven wrong by distant galaxies being older than the supposed age of the universe).

 

All of which are batshit crazy! Oh A-wal, don't hate yourself so, son! It gets better!

 

 

Have you ever heard a blindfolded octopus unwrap a cellophane-covered bathtub? :phones:

Buffy

[A-wal]

All of which are batshit crazy! Oh A-wal, don't hate yourself so, son! It gets better!

 

 

Have you ever heard a blindfolded octopus unwrap a cellophane-covered bathtub? :phones:

Buffy

Huh? Hate myself? Wft are you talking about? You wouldn't say that if you knew me? :) Are you capable of forming any kind of coherent argument or is this it?

 

Why don't you explain then:

 

1. What Haltan Arp observed, that quasars appear to be physically connected to low red-shift galaxies far too often for it to be written off as fluke alignments.

 

2. How the von Newmann chain in quantum mechanics is broken. In other words, at what point does the wave function collapse? If it's somehow connected to the act of measurement itself rather than the consciousness of the observer then at what point during the measurement does the collapse occur and how do you explain the results of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment?

 

3. Why do we observe galaxies at distances that, according to the big bang model, shouldn't have had enough time to form so soon after the birth of the universe? This one is soon going to be big news because as we're able yo look further out into the universe, we're going to see lots of fully formed galaxies that shouldn't be there.

Edited May 1, 2017 by A-wal

[Buffy]

Huh? Hate myself? Wft are you talking about? You wouldn't say that if you knew me?  :)

 

I was being facetious dear. I think we're are all quite well acquainted with how much you do *not* hate yourself.

 

 

Are you capable of forming any kind of coherent argument or is this it?

 

Why yes, yes I am! People keep telling me that, and heck *paying* me a lot of money for spouting off about things! They even let me order them around! :cheer:

 

Why don't you explain then:

 

Because it would be off topic, but I'll entertain you for one:

 

1. What Haltan Arp observed, that quasars appear to be physically connected to low red-shift galaxies far too often for it to be written off as fluke alignments.

 

Oh the ever so persecuted Halton Arp. Now I went to school a very long time ago, but even back then, my Astronomy professor, Frank Shu at UC Berkeley explained, "Arp's claims for the distance of these quasars are so close that we'd see parallax if he was right, and we don't."

 

Now I don't want to malign Dr. Arp too much because his odd galaxies is a classic (and Dr. Shu held him in high regard for that because one of his specialties is in galaxy formation/evolution), but seriously, Steady State has so much evidence against it that his constant bleating about it did indeed piss a lot of his peers off.

 

You know what the biggest predictor of being "shunned" by your scientific peers is? Nope, not "advocating controversial theories." It has a lot more to do with being an ******* about it and spending more time insisting that you're right instead of spending the time actually trying to convince people and gather evidence.

 

And that's something you really ought to consider.

 

 

Everyone has one and some are bigger than others, :phones:

Buffy

[A-wal]

I was being facetious dear.

Oh I see sugar lumps.

 

I think we're are all quite well acquainted with how much you do *not* hate yourself.

:biggrin:

 

Why yes, yes I am! People keep telling me that, and heck *paying* me a lot of money for spouting off about things! They even let me order them around! :cheer:

Awesome!   I wish I'd never found these bloody things :excl2:

 

Because it would be off topic, but I'll entertain you for one:

I don't think that's a bad thing considering the topic, do you?

 

Because it would be off topic, but I'll entertain you for one:

Got nothing for the other two huh?

 

Oh the ever so persecuted Halton Arp. Now I went to school a very long time ago, but even back then, my Astronomy professor, Frank Shu at UC Berkeley explained, "Arp's claims for the distance of these quasars are so close that we'd see parallax if he was right, and we don't."

 

Now I don't want to malign Dr. Arp too much because his odd galaxies is a classic (and Dr. Shu held him in high regard for that because one of his specialties is in galaxy formation/evolution), but seriously, Steady State has so much evidence against it that his constant bleating about it did indeed piss a lot of his peers off.

 

You know what the biggest predictor of being "shunned" by your scientific peers is? Nope, not "advocating controversial theories." It has a lot more to do with being an ******* about it and spending more time insisting that you're right instead of spending the time actually trying to convince people and gather evidence.

 

And that's something you really ought to consider.

What "so much evidence against it" did the steady state model have?

 

Asserting that the universe started off as nothing at all, which then exploded, is one hell of a claim. One that requires justification other than red-shift that's blindly assumed to only caused by recession despite strong evidence that this isn't the case.

 

Maybe if they didn't reject his evidence based on not wanting to accept its implications rather than due to any lack of validity, Arp wouldn't have been so much of a pain in the arse. Something for you to consider.

 

Everyone has one and some are bigger than others,

Er, belly buttons?

[Super Polymath]

The mind is entirely dictated by energy, your thoughts are made of little photons flying through your brain,

Electrons, not photons. 

 

 

 

 if you cant understand then just move along so the people with more neurons can discuss

 

Synaptic connections are more important for forming concepts than neurons in the human brain. 

[Super Polymath]

All of which are batshit crazy! 

Truth is stranger than fiction. 

 

However I believe the nature of existence is very down to earth and simple. Ultimately simple. We name molecules molecules, atoms atoms, particles particles, really it's just reductions of stuff. There's infinite stuff that's always been around, always will be around, that behaves, interacts, and causes the wheel to turn how observe the wheel turning. In such a place, the nature of infinity gives way to the strangest of the strange phenomena. So when we see a guy like Einstein with messy hair drone on about these labeled deductions, strange concepts, and what-not, what seems to us as a bizarre man is just someone whose comprehension is attempting to engulf something that no level of reason could ever fully absorb. 

Edited May 2, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Buffy]

Got nothing for the other two huh?

 

Oh plenty! But only the first one is free. From there on out you have to pay! 

 

 

 

What "so much evidence against it" did the steady state model have?

 

So you haven't read any? Well, that certainly explains the "strong" arguments you present in defense of poor Alton:

 

 

Asserting that the universe started off as nothing at all, which then exploded, is one hell of a claim. 

 

The "oh my, my brain can't imagine that being true! It's...it's...COUNTERINTUITIVE!"

 

*Snicker*

 

...One that requires justification other than red-shift that's blindly assumed to only caused by recession despite strong evidence that this isn't the case.

 

Do you think red shift is the only proof? "Blindly assumed?" What "strong evidence?" 

 

Really dear, your lack of education and blind bias against the Cabal of Evil Scientists is, well, embarrassing.

 

Er, belly buttons?

 

Nope! 

 

 

Nothing is as irritating to a shy man as a confident girl, :phones:

Buffy