Results 451 to 480 of 1476
Thread: LGBTitp - Part Seven
-
2010-07-04, 10:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Dinosaur Museum aw yisss.
- Gender
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
I assume that "just a theory" was tongue-in-cheek.
Some of the links I posted before include hypotheses on the evolutionary function of homosexuality. The main ones seem to be: giving progressive offspring different levels of femininity and therefore reducing competition between them; gay offspring helping to raise the others and their nieces/nephews; the alleles that happen to occasionally result in homosexual individuals being reproductively advantageous in heterosexuals annnd... ionno, probably something else.Last edited by Serpentine; 2010-07-04 at 10:44 AM.
The Iron Avatarist Hall of Fame!
Prizes(Un)Official Best Playground Avatarist Competition
----
Also, buy my stuff! T-Shirts too!
-
2010-07-04, 10:47 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Gothenburg, Sweden
- Gender
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
A more serious question.
Spoiler
Are dinosaur hallucinations a common manifestation of homosexuality?Avatar by CoffeeIncluded
Oooh, and that's a bad miss.
“Don't exercise your freedom of speech until you have exercised your freedom of thought.”
― Tim Fargo
-
2010-07-04, 11:11 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- The Netherlands
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
Gay also means happy, joyful, festive, bright or colorful.
-
2010-07-04, 11:18 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Gothenburg, Sweden
- Gender
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
I am aware of this. That doesn't make it any less funny in a modern context.
Avatar by CoffeeIncluded
Oooh, and that's a bad miss.
“Don't exercise your freedom of speech until you have exercised your freedom of thought.”
― Tim Fargo
-
2010-07-04, 11:20 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- The Netherlands
-
2010-07-04, 11:23 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
"Laugh at my boner, will they? I'll show them! I'll show them how many boners the Joker can make!"
Yes, yes, language drift, har de har har.Last edited by FoE; 2010-07-04 at 11:25 AM.
-
2010-07-04, 11:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Location
- Toad Town
- Gender
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
None of those definitions seem to make any sense in that sentence either. It's just weird.
-
2010-07-04, 11:27 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
I think they mean it in the YouTube commenter meaning: i.e. stupid.
((Yes, I know that comic predates YouTube. Yes, I know not all YouTube commenters are like that.))I use black for sarcasm.
Call me Rose, or The Rose Dragon. Rose Dragon is someone else entirely.
If you need me for something, please PM me about it. I am having difficulty keeping track of all my obligations.
-
2010-07-04, 01:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Gender
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
Conclusive? In science?
*snrk*
*snort*
*ha*
*haha*
*AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*
*sniff* >wipes tear from eye<
The trickester writer who wrote that probably used that in defense of slipping that one past the radar.Last edited by Eloi; 2010-07-04 at 01:22 PM.
-
2010-07-04, 01:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Gender
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
No no no, that is terribly wrong and frankly sexist. The whole idea of "manliness" is quite modern, look at some non western cultures such as Japan where what we call effeminate is seen as the epitome of masculinity (caligraphy is manly in Japan!). In pre-agrarian societies men and women were generally equal and usually shared the work equally. Some may even have been matriarchal, although the evidence for that isn't as great as some claim/believe. At any rate the development of agriculture had nothing to do with evolution, it was just a fluke. Evolution has long since ceased to be a major force on the human species, since humans are perhaps the first species where nurture is just as important if not more important than nature. At any rate not everything a species does has to be advantageous, that's not how evolution works. Evolution is blind, natural selection is the theory of how better traits are selected for. Natural selection doesn't predict that every adaptation will actually be useful, and in fact it is to be expected that in a successful species there will be several traits that are quite useless. Fact is, homosexuality is a fluke just like everything in evolution, regardless of whether it is useful to the human species.
-
2010-07-04, 03:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2010
- Location
- Connecticut
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
I know. Hence the quotation marks. I wasn't saying that the individuals in question said to themselves, "I don't like hunting because it's manly, and therefore I shall try feminine gardening instead." They said to themselves, "I don't like hunting, just because I don't like it. Maybe I'd like gardening instead?"
In pre-agrarian societies men and women were generally equal and usually shared the work equally. Some may even have been matriarchal, although the evidence for that isn't as great as some claim/believe.
At any rate the development of agriculture had nothing to do with evolution, it was just a fluke. Evolution has long since ceased to be a major force on the human species, since humans are perhaps the first species where nurture is just as important if not more important than nature. At any rate not everything a species does has to be advantageous, that's not how evolution works. Evolution is blind, natural selection is the theory of how better traits are selected for. Natural selection doesn't predict that every adaptation will actually be useful, and in fact it is to be expected that in a successful species there will be several traits that are quite useless. Fact is, homosexuality is a fluke just like everything in evolution, regardless of whether it is useful to the human species.
Oh, and it wasn't an article, it was an excerpt from Intermediate Types Among Primitive Folk: A Study In Social Evolution by Edward Carpenter (1921). And it wasn't just about the development of agriculture, but also of medicines, musics, arts, etc. Basically the section was saying that people with non-traditional gender identities turn their creative energies away from traditional roles (i.e. hunting and domestic stuff), which leads to the development of new ideas, etc. Though I haven't read the book in question, and it's a little old.Last edited by Danne; 2010-07-04 at 03:25 PM.
-
2010-07-04, 04:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Gender
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
I am simply arguing against that theory, I don't mean to be offensive, but in my opinion, backed up by considerable evidence, that theory is wrong. There is considerable evidence that almost all conceptions of gender are societal rather than inborn. Men wouldn't prefer either hunting or gardening in greater concentrations unless society told them to. There is no inborn trait that says men like to hunt and women like to garden, it is completely sociological.
The other point I was trying to make is that while homosexuality is by definition a product of evolution, it isn't affected by natural selection because natural selection ceased to act on humans once we developed culture and civilization.Last edited by Drolyt; 2010-07-04 at 04:26 PM.
-
2010-07-04, 05:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2010
- Location
- Connecticut
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
*shrug* It's not my theory, I don't care if you believe it or not. Though it seems to make some sense to me. You say that "men wouldn't prefer either hunting or gardening in in greater concentrations unless society told them to," but there were plenty of societies that did tell them to. There are archeological sites which scientists today believe were dedicated 100% to "manly" (there's that word again...) activities such as hunting -- Gatecliff Shelter in Nevada, for example, or Vaenget Nord in Denmark. Many Native American tribes had equal or fluid gender roles, but others, such as most Sioux tribes, had very strict divisions, with men being hunters/providers and women being mothers/caretakers. There are other examples in other cultures, as well. I'm not saying that Carpenter's theory is right for all societies everywhere (or even that it's right in the first place -- again, I was just passing it on, not swearing by it) but your statement that men and women shared work equally isn't true for everywhere.
And again, I wasn't saying that homosexuality is affected by natural selection (though I disagree that natural selection has ceased to act on humans; natural selection is always at work. That's a topic for a different thread, though). I was just responding the Superglucose's comment that it would be disadvantageous.Last edited by Danne; 2010-07-04 at 05:32 PM.
-
2010-07-04, 05:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Gender
-
2010-07-04, 05:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- Tackleford
- Gender
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
Out-of-context diachronic variation makes everything funny.
Especially boners.Everything I say is 100% TRUTH*
*may contain traces of lie
Loki avatar by Dr.Bath.
(I totally ship him and Curly. But shhh, it's a secret.)
Formerly known as Aziraphale.
-
2010-07-05, 03:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- for the sake of my art?
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
"1921". Found your problem. It may be fun to read sociological and societal speculations of the first few decades of the 20th century, but never use them as an impartial source! Many of them are little more than contortions to justify a bias. The social sciences hadn't yet cleaved off fully from philosophy and applied to themselves standards of impartiality and. . .darnit, can't think of the word. . .being concluded from facts, not speculated from them. Inferred, derived, something like that.
-
2010-07-05, 10:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- New Orleans, Louisiana
- Gender
-
2010-07-05, 10:51 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2004
- Location
- Paradise Island
- Gender
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
Whenever I hear 'gay' used that way, I'm always reminded of Mr. Burns:
Burns: So, Smithers, what are your plans for the weekend? Something gay no doubt?
Smithers: *gasps* What?
Burns: Oh, you know! Mothers, lock up your daughters, Smithers is on the town!
Smithers: *relieved* Er... exactly sir.“I promise, we will find all your moms. And I'm gonna tell!.”- Wonder Woman
Avatar by FdL
-
2010-07-05, 12:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2010
- Location
- Connecticut
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
Common archeological consent is that women did not go to the places in question. I'm afraid I don't know the details; I am not an archeologist.
My problem? I never once claimed it was a sound source (I noted that it was old) or that I subscribed to the theory, though it seems to make some sense or I wouldn't have shared it. "Some sense" doesn't mean it's accurate, just that I thought other people might find it interesting. It could be accurate, at least to a certain degree, but it could also be complete nonsense. Again -- I was tossing out a few suggestions as to how being LGBT could be beneficial to the species, not saying that any one of them were conclusively the case.
Edit: @^: Who are Burns and Smithers?Last edited by Danne; 2010-07-05 at 12:35 PM.
-
2010-07-05, 12:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
- N + 1
- Gender
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
Simpsons characters, insofar as I am aware.
"I am the very model of a scientist Salarian,
I've studied species Turian, Asari and Batarian,
I'm quite good at genetics (as a subset of biology)
Because I am an expert (which I know is a tautology!
My xenoscience studies range from urban to agrarian,
I am the very model of a scientist Salarian!"
Don't play League of Legends? Want to?
-
2010-07-05, 12:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Location
- Canadia
- Gender
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
Well...someone had to link this. Might as well be me.
The all-knowing Wikipedia is telling me that "gay" has undergone several shifts in meaning over the 800-ish years since its introduction into English. The "carefree" connotations helped it shift to mean "sexually immoral" as early as the 17th century, where a gay man was an adulterer and a gay woman was a prostitute. In other words, sexually carefree. It appears that its early use to mean homosexual was primarily a euphemism or code on the part of those who used it in about the 1920s, but it may have been earlier than that. I think the idea is that "gay" has always had multiple meanings, some innocent and some not-so-innocent.
Oh, what the hell. One more funny link: the grandest story of the naughty nineties becomes the gayest picture of the fighting forties! (bonus points for starring the very gay—as in womanizing adulterer—Errol Flynn)Remember when I had an avatar?
-
2010-07-05, 02:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Gender
-
2010-07-06, 10:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Gotham City
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
This assumes that sociological functions can be completely integrated into a scientific model. A big assumption. Many in the social "sciences" would disagree that they are science, that that standard can be achieved or even would be desirable to achieve. Controlling for variables and experimental methods are at the core of science. Controlling for social variables and experiments on humans are all together different. This would assume you can find a "control" human,a human outside social influence or in which all social influence is completely understood, which if we are trying to study the effects of social influence you cannot do.
That does not mean you cannot infer conclusions based on what we currently observe, it does not mean you cannot fruitfully study social constructs, social norms, human behavior and question them and try to deduce why things might be the way they are. Just don't pretend you have all the factors figured out when you don't. Don't pretend you are doing science. That's just bad science."In those halcyon days I believed that the source of enigma was stupidity. Then the other evening in the periscope I decided that the most terrible enigmas are hose that mask themselves as madness. But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -Casaubon, Foucault's Pendulum
-
2010-07-06, 01:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
- Xin-Shalast
- Gender
-
2010-07-06, 02:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Gotham City
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
Errr... umm... I was in no way defending a 1921 research paper that is probably terrible. As for trying not to be a "useless source, dripping with malice, bias, and misinformation." I in fact said the opposite, I said that you could indeed provide fruitful knowledge on social systems/constructs. So I have no idea why you would be directing that at me
I was simply disagreeing on the assumption that everything useful has to be a science and disagreeing that research on social constructs can even be scientific, especially when you are misusing science, misusing it to a degree that would make anyone who is an actual scientist vomit."In those halcyon days I believed that the source of enigma was stupidity. Then the other evening in the periscope I decided that the most terrible enigmas are hose that mask themselves as madness. But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -Casaubon, Foucault's Pendulum
-
2010-07-06, 06:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Gender
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
I agree that the social sciences are not science. Science is not the end all be all.
-
2010-07-06, 07:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
Science is the process of hypothesizing, testing, and refining until you figure out how or why something works. Just because you can't boil something down to a number with three or four decimal places doesn't mean it isn't a science. Double-blind studies are just as scientific as growing things in petri dishes, and seeking statistical significance is as valid as seeking complete certainty; it's the methodology that matters, not the results. The social sciences may have fewer proven theories and laws and more correlations and working hypotheses, but that doesn't make them any less of a science; in fact, any field that would "pretend you have all the factors figured out" wouldn't be a science, because as soon as you know all the answers, you're not longer doing science.
-
2010-07-06, 08:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Gender
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
People disagree on what makes science science. I only consider something a science if you can reduce it to a controllable experiment, which is impossible in the social sciences. This doesn't make the social sciences any less useful; note that by my definition mathematics isn't a science either and yet mathematics is arguably the basis of all modern knowledge. In the end though I'm not interested in convincing others on this matter, I'd rather agree to disagree.
-
2010-07-06, 08:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
How exactly do you define a controllable experiment, then? I mean, if you're testing "Do people of race/gender/ethnic background/education level/whatever A do/like X more or less than people of race/gender/ethnic background/education level/whatever B," you can grab a good random sample of the population with trait A and a good random sample of the population with trait B and do an experiment with that. You don't have to distill experiments to a single independent variable to have a meaningful test that yields statistically significant results, and in fact even in the "hard" sciences like physics or chemistry it's not always possible to reduce experiments to such a pure level.
This doesn't make the social sciences any less useful; note that by my definition mathematics isn't a science either and yet mathematics is arguably the basis of all modern knowledge. In the end though I'm not interested in convincing others on this matter, I'd rather agree to disagree.
-
2010-07-06, 08:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2010
- Location
- Connecticut
Re: LGBTitp - Part Seven
All I have to add on the "what is science?" debate is that science is a process, a way of thinking, and is not necessarily the same thing in different subjects.
Here's something that Aziraphale's book question reminded me has been bothering me. I've noticed a lot of celebrities coming out as bisexual these days. (I can't name names; I don't really follow celebrities. All I know is every other week I open my Yahoo! account and the news blurb is talking about another one coming out.) Honestly, my first reaction is, "Bah! They're just doing it for attention." And then I cringe and kick myself, because I'm bisexual, and shouldn't I be the first person to give them the benefit of the doubt?
What's your opinion? Is it trendy to be bi? A good way for a famous person to get a little more attention? Or are they genuine? Is this a good thing for the LGBT community because it gets the public accustomed to us, or a bad thing given that a celebrity's every act can be caught on camera and an "out" celebrity can easily be caught doing something bad (not because they're out, but because they're human, but that can shed bad light on them/us)? Or am I reading into this way too much?