Obama vs. Beantown

[Hopper]

I think I made sense there. I know what I mean, at any rate. I apologize if my language is too imprecise for the scientists and lawyers involved in this discussion.

Well, Darlin, I aint no bottom-feeder, er nuthin (mebbe that's why) but I gitcha, eh? I aint knowin nuthin bout no chemistry, neither (well, cept for how to mix up crack, mebbe), but I not only gitcha, I witcha!

Has been from jumpstreet, homegerl. Even back in that other thread, after you said it to Beaner, I throwed this in, in yo support, remember?:

Yeah, Bean, it's quite possible that evolutionary factors cause weak-***, limp-wristed males to go homo just so they don't perpetuate their kind. Ever think of that?

 

[NAOS]

Do you have a link?

At any rate, it seems plausible to me, based upon things I discovered when I was looking up various aspects related to this issue in the past.


Bean's entire argument, as much as he wants to couch it in terms of "biodiversity" - "evolution" and "natural selection" - rests on the premise that it takes a sperm from a male and an egg from a female to procreate. Because of that, he feels that only male & female pairings are worthy of marriage.

As far as I can tell, nobody is arguing with the statement that it takes a sperm from a male and an egg from a female to procreate. The argument comes in when Bean states his belief that this type of pairing is the only one of real importance to human life. He cannot see that anything else could possibly have any real importance or value since it is not capable of procreating in the biological sense. The fact that this type of "creation" can take place in a laboratory without any sort of sexual contact is not a factor to him, for some reason.

I think I made sense there. I know what I mean, at any rate. I apologize if my language is too imprecise for the scientists and lawyers involved in this discussion.

Oh, and for some strange reason, Bean seems to like digging himself into holes.

I can't send you to specific link. All of the theories that I referenced can be found in well-respected articles in academic journals. If you were really interested in these issues I would refer you to a book called "Diversity's Rainbow" by Joan Roughgarden. It is a book that is written for the non-specialist, by a theoretical biologist who became interested in bigger questions and interdisciplinary connections.

Roughgarden develops a very convincing theory/definition of gender. She illustrates the sexual dynamics of several species (from lizards to birds to fish to mammals) with more than 2 genders. Also, she explains the highly complex sexual politics of primate species and how same-sex contact is actually quite common. Do a slight bit of research on Bonobos (along with Chimps, they are our closest biological relatives), they are all doing sexy stuff to each other -- damn the sex of the individual.

homosexuality is NOT exceedingly common in primate species, but it is there... across the board. There are several good theories as to why, but that is a much bigger/longer conversation. The take-home message is that sexuality is always, in part, socially constructed. Suggesting otherwise is absolutely ridiculous, i.e. Beantown-like.

 

[Hopper]

If you were really interested in these issues I would refer you to a book called "Diversity's Rainbow" by Joan Roughgarden.

"This is a scientific book—study after study is critically analyzed and well-referenced in fifty pages of chapter notes—but Roughgarden, a transgendered female, has a social agenda. By refuting Darwin’s sexual selection theory and affirming biodiversity, she seeks to end notions of male superiority and discrimination against people of diverse gender and sexual orientations."

https://www.enotes.com/evolutions-rainbow-salem/evolutions-rainbow

"Transgendered female" with an "agenda," eh? Dunno, sounds kinda scary to me.

 

[NAOS]

"This is a scientific book—study after study is critically analyzed and well-referenced in fifty pages of chapter notes—but Roughgarden, a transgendered female, has a social agenda. By refuting Darwin’s sexual selection theory and affirming biodiversity, she seeks to end notions of male superiority and discrimination against people of diverse gender and sexual orientations."

https://www.enotes.com/evolutions-rainbow-salem/evolutions-rainbow


"Transgendered female" with an "agenda," eh? Dunno, sounds kinda scary to me.

This so-called "agenda" pops up more in her discussions of politics and social theory. Her biology is sound; those aspects of the book have survived the peer-review process. The book is definitely worth the read.... I'd be the first to suggest skipping political and social theory parts. If you want reading suggestions for these avenues, and you're seriously interested, then I'll think about it. The philosophy of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari jumps straight to mind.

That said, that she is "transgendered" shouldn't scare you at all.

 

[Hopper]

. That said, that she is "transgendered" shouldn't scare you at all.

Well, ya never know, eh, New? What's her "agenda," exactly, I wonder? Seems "she seeks to end notions of male superiority," it says there. She could be some kinda Loraine Bobbit type, know what I'm sayin?

 

[NAOS]

Well, ya never know, eh, New? What's her "agenda?" She could be some kinda Loraine Bobbit type, know what I'm sayin?

Your whole shtick is make-believe anyway, so why not include her? What do you have to lose, your make-believe blues-balls?

 

[TroutBum]

Just for the record, I'm all for Female - Female sexual contact.

 

[NAOS]

Just for the record, I'm all for Female - Female sexual contact.

I'm sure your bishop would like to know this.

 

[Bronco70]

speaking of abortion, have you ever considered reading your own writing?

If you want to know where the true left is you are, uNfoRtuNatEly, going to have to R-E-A-D.

I, for one, wouldn't mind if you stayed inside more, watching your television, and forgot to vote.

Regardless of how misguided Beantown's OPINION is, he tries to explain himself without being condescending douchebag.

 

[Hopper]

Regardless of how misguided Beantown's OPINION is, he tries to explain himself without being condescending douchebag.

How can ya go runnin round callin this splenderous hunk of pomposity a "douchebag," I ax ya, eh, Bronc? Mebbe you aint knowin, but he's a bona fide expert on these here topics. He done tole us all that. No real need to, though. Ya know, straight-off, that anybuddy callin hisself "Sage" gotta be plumb brilliant, eh? Mebbe not as brilliant as Kicky, but, still..

 

[C l u t c H 385]

This so-called "agenda" pops up more in her discussions of politics and social theory. Her biology is sound; those aspects of the book have survived the peer-review process. The book is definitely worth the read.... I'd be the first to suggest skipping political and social theory parts. If you want reading suggestions for these avenues, and you're seriously interested, then I'll think about it. The philosophy of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari jumps straight to mind.

That said, that she is "transgendered" shouldn't scare you at all.

It's still a he. And any dude that chops of his D-Willy is pretty scary, I figya.

 

[Bronco70]

How can ya go runnin round callin this splenderous hunk of pomposity a "douchebag," I ax ya, eh, Bronc? Mebbe you aint knowin, but he's a bona fide expert on these here topics. He done tole us all that. No real need to, though. Ya know, straight-off, that anybuddy callin hisself "Sage" gotta be plumb brilliant, eh? Mebbe not as brilliant as Kicky, but, still..

Hop - read it again. I didn't call him any names. I only commented on Beantown.