RE: BDSM in nature (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

Toysinbabeland -> RE: BDSM in nature (10/23/2012 2:46:50 PM)

it really makes you wonder why so many dominants use lion pics



Darkfeather -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/23/2012 2:47:24 PM)

Aaaand you completely missed my point. Again with the big words... I asked why the cat didn't evolve to speak, not what structures in the brain are similar, again. Why. I gave you my answer, because that cat didn't evolve to. I didn't quote Darwin, or cite webpages of anthropological text, I simply stated the fact. Fact, the cat didn't evolve to. So can you give such a statement based in biology, since we know everything about the brain and genetics? Keep in mind you have stated over and over that the cat and the human have similar brains, so you would have to also explain why humans evolved but cats didn't, based on this



CuriousFerret -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/23/2012 3:17:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

Again with the big words...
Look, the only other way to discuss it is to talk about it in terms of Brodmann areas, and that's annoying as hell.

quote:

I asked why the cat didn't evolve to speak, not what structures in the brain are similar, again.
At a guess, I would initiate investigations with Brodmann areas 44 and 45.

quote:

Keep in mind you have stated over and over that the cat and the human have similar brains, so you would have to also explain why humans evolved but cats didn't, based on this
I would imagine that one part of the reason is that the part of the brain that handles hierarchial sequential patterns is much more advanced in humans than in cats. Perhaps there is also a higher density of connections between the neocortex and the motor neurons for the laryngal muscles in humans than there are in cats, and those connections would probably be better myelinated. I could be wrong about that, but it's a reasonable postulation.



Darkfeather -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/23/2012 3:52:00 PM)

Herein is my point. You can't.

quote:

I would imagine that one part of the reason is that the part of the brain that handles hierarchial sequential patterns is much more advanced in humans than in cats.


No self respecting scientist would try to defend statements as fact with I imagine, or I suppose. Science deals with fact, especially if you are going to support a contrary statement. You cannot refute established rhetoric about evolution with "I imagine". Hence why I asked for a simple answer, of which you yourself said you could not give. That should be your clue that you cannot use such statements. Theory, sure, guess away. I guess, I suppose, I imagine, those are the language of theoretical thinking. But in science, fact always supersedes theory



CuriousFerret -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/23/2012 4:17:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

You cannot refute established rhetoric about evolution...
I prefer talking about evolution in terms of individual proteins. Unfortunately, I can never find anybody who is knowledgeable enough in the field to actually have any sort of a discussion with, so I'm left to read about it on my own time.

If you want to discuss the human immune system, though, I have done considerable reading at some points on the cladistics of immunoglobulin and such. The immune system in general is fascinating to me. That's the first thing that comes to mind for me when I hear the term, "evolution."

I really don't like using the term in other contexts because, outside of the contexts in which I actually find the term useful, the meaning of it is so politicized that it's really annoying and cumbersome. You end up being better off referring to it obliquely.

But my understanding of "evolution" and yours are probably worlds apart.

And "facts" are for preachers and politicians.



Darkfeather -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/23/2012 4:59:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousFerret

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

You cannot refute established rhetoric about evolution...
I prefer talking about evolution in terms of individual proteins. Unfortunately, I can never find anybody who is knowledgeable enough in the field to actually have any sort of a discussion with, so I'm left to read about it on my own time.

If you want to discuss the human immune system, though, I have done considerable reading at some points on the cladistics of immunoglobulin and such. The immune system in general is fascinating to me. That's the first thing that comes to mind for me when I hear the term, "evolution."

I really don't like using the term in other contexts because, outside of the contexts in which I actually find the term useful, the meaning of it is so politicized that it's really annoying and cumbersome. You end up being better off referring to it obliquely.

But my understanding of "evolution" and yours are probably worlds apart.

And "facts" are for preachers and politicians.


ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.

Sorry, but see nothing in that definition about proteins. This is the established meaning of the word, and what everyone in this discussion means when we talk about this stuff. If yours is more widely accepted, then it is news to me. And I don't know where you got that saying, but politicians and preachers, are as far from the facts as a cat having the same brain structure of a human. But yep, this is the last one I respond to, because I have never heard of someone saying they don't believe in facts... Science is built on the notion of facts, its a point of origin. But yeah, I can't even comprehend trying to start from an establishment of the basics, like the definition of evolution or your belief in "facts". Honestly, I have never heard that said in seriousness...



CuriousFerret -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/23/2012 5:25:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

Sorry, but see nothing in that definition about proteins.
The entirety of evolution comes down to proteins. When you get a mutation in coding DNA, the only thing that has changed is the coding of a protein. Nothing more, nothing less.

quote:

And I don't know where you got that saying,
A scientist.



littlewonder -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/23/2012 6:07:01 PM)

So basically you read all these books about science and think you are a scientist now.

Gotchya.

[8|]



Darkfeather -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/23/2012 6:08:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder

So basically you read all these books about science and think you are a scientist now.

Gotchya.

[8|]



Nope, because even a scientist has to start with facts



CuriousFerret -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/23/2012 6:16:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder

So basically you read all these books about science and think you are a scientist now.

Gotchya.

[8|]
Periodicals, actually. And no, I'm really not enough of a math whiz to be much good in the sciences. I stumbled through four-credit calculus with feelings of pain, desperation and raw animal panic dogging my every step. However, I am fairly literate, and I enjoy casually speculating on these subjects.

@Darkfeather, a strong citation is worth ten thousand purported facts.



Darkfeather -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/23/2012 6:48:06 PM)

quote:

****Darkfeather, a strong citation is worth ten thousand purported facts.


*facepalm*

fact   [fakt] Show IPA
noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.
something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.
something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5.
Law . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

compared to:

ci·ta·tion (s-tshn)
n.
1. The act of citing.
2.
a. A quoting of an authoritative source for substantiation.
b. A source so cited; a quotation.
3. Law A reference to previous court decisions or authoritative writings.
4. Enumeration or mention, as of facts, especially:
a. An official commendation for meritorious action, especially in military service: a citation for bravery.
b. A formal statement of the accomplishments of one being honored with an academic degree.
5. An official summons, especially one calling for appearance in court.

you seriously think that even 10 quotes not substantiated, are worth more than one fact? Please tell me this is not how you truly think? Oh, and you cannot have a purported fact, either it is fact or it is not. You my friend, are thinking of theory. Theory would be an unsubstantiated fact or hypothesis. Using periodicals to refute long standing dogma... *sigh*



CuriousFerret -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/23/2012 7:04:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

quote:

****Darkfeather, a strong citation is worth ten thousand purported facts.


*facepalm*
The feeling is mutual, I can assure you.



Darkfeather -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/23/2012 7:39:20 PM)

Logic and common sense, do have that effect on some. Excuse me while I look up citations for that statement...



CuriousFerret -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/24/2012 1:19:12 PM)

Oh, and here is a good article on speech and the brain.

http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_10/d_10_cr/d_10_cr_lan/d_10_cr_lan.html

Anyway, now that Darkfeather has been reduced to semantics and has apparently given up on respectful discussion, it seems like I'm the only person left participating here who still wants to try to have a serious, meaningful discussion. Therefore, I guess it's up to me to get the conversation back on-track.

One of the most widely cited examples of D/s-like behavior in non-human animals is the pack structure observed in wolves. I'd actually like to debunk this.

For one thing, most wolf packs tend to be nuclear or extended family, and so-called "omega" wolves are usually either younger wolves, and dominance tends to be age-graded (Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation, L. David Mech and Luigi Boitani, p. 54). In the first case, I don't see anything extraordinary about parents using nips, rather than spanking, to discipline their children.

The reason people formed the misconception that "alpha wolves" tend to brutally dominate their packs comes from observations of wolves kept in captivity. This kind of bullying behavior looks to me a lot more equivalent to prison rape than anything else. It turns out, though, that apparently "submissive" behavior in wolves might actually be a remnant of behavior aimed at getting food from parents (Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs, by David Mech). The "submissive" wolf will lick the corners of the "dominant" wolf's mouth, and sometimes this results in the "dominant" wolf regurgitating a quantity of food.

By the way, I imagine this is why your puppy tends to be hell-bent on licking your face.

However, I think it would stand to reason that existing behaviors could be adapted in a number of different ways, and I think it's doubtful that new behavioral traits just emerge ex nihilo.

Therefore, if there actually is a purely naturalistic explanation for the driving psycho-sociological factors that drive BDSM, my opinion is that it's most likely a coincidental adaptation or contra-adaptation of an existing set of behaviors that might once have served a more readily apparent purpose. For example, it might actually be a strange expression of childcare related instincts.



littlewonder -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/24/2012 1:34:08 PM)

You do know that when you read books, you're not supposed to just take it as correct. You're supposed to actually use your head to ask yourself if it is correct and to do more research. So far from what I can see, you're just spewing information and deducing it must be correct because ya know, it's written in a book. Kinda like all information on the net is correct or they couldn't post it. [8|]



CuriousFerret -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/24/2012 2:57:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder

You do know that when you read books, you're not supposed to just take it as correct.
Yes. I don't read books, though, at least not in my studies. I tend to prefer reading things that have a materials and methods section. The only books I've studied with any seriousness lately come from the Pentateuch, and that's just been to try to figure out whether there could actually be a connection between YHWH and the Ugaritic deity, Yam. The theory is very popular in some circles, but I would like to find something in the Pentateuch itself that corroborates it.

I do read a little bit of fiction, though. I spent a half-hour yesterday reading the original Greek version of the Iliad, for example. It's a lot better than the translated version.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/homer/greek/ili01.htm



Darkfeather -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/24/2012 3:27:39 PM)

quote:

Anyway, now that Darkfeather has been reduced to semantics and has apparently given up on respectful discussion, it seems like I'm the only person left participating here who still wants to try to have a serious, meaningful discussion. Therefore, I guess it's up to me to get the conversation back on-track.


Seriously, you need to stop. You aren't having a meaningful discussion, you are just regurgitating ad hoc things you read online. Now as I said, you can believe this stuff, hell you can believe the moon is made of cheese or Santa Claus is real. But when you try to refute long standing facts with internet articles? That is where I take issue. To say that your view is to be taken by us as fact is laughable. Theory, sure. But then again, you don't believe in facts, so this whole discussion process with you is confusing at best. You avoid simple questions, spout enumerable scientific terms instead of common language, and make bold claims with little to no basis in fact. The widely accepted definition of fact, that is. This whole experience reminds me of talking religion with a devout... You have this idea in your head from where ever it came from, and are now taking it as "the word".



WinsomeDefiance -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/24/2012 3:43:49 PM)

You know, this isn't at all the direction I envisioned an 8 page thread titled, Penis Spikes going.



PeonForHer -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/24/2012 4:28:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousFerretx. I spent a half-hour yesterday reading the original Greek version of the Iliad, for example. It's a lot better than the translated version.



Excellent! [:D]

By any chance, are you in the process of applying for a UK visa, CF?



CuriousFerret -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/24/2012 6:27:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

Now as I said, you can believe this stuff,
I haven't said anything remotely outlandish from the standpoint of modern science.

quote:

But when you try to refute long standing facts with internet articles?
McGill University is a reputable institution.

quote:

To say that your view is to be taken by us as fact is laughable.
"Fact," as you are using the term, is something that I don't believe in. This is an ontological standpoint, and it reflects my general views on metaphysics. That would be a long conversation that I doubt you are able or willing to engage in with any depth.

quote:

so this whole discussion process with you is confusing at best.
Because you are out of your depth.

quote:

You avoid simple questions,
The problem is that the questions are not as simple as you think they are.

quote:

spout enumerable scientific terms instead of common language,
Look, I could use terms like "Wernicke's Area" and "Broca's Area," which are relatively easy to comprehend, or I could use the "Brodmann Area $#" format. That's just what these regions of the brain are called, though. I don't know what other labels you want put on them.



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875