[2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Blame Quintushalls for this.

Moderator: Kimra

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby Peter » Thu Sep 01, 2011 9:49 am

I'll go further, and state that I'm pretty sure breasts are awesome.

It does looks like a reference to Elevatorgate, actually, more than one of the recent comics have.
Peter
 

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby precarious » Thu Sep 01, 2011 11:20 am

Haha, "the patriarchy". The point is that both the right-wingers and the anti-boob guy are following absurd platforms with no factual evidence, and that you can say anyone else's stance "brainwashing" as an excuse for thinking they're an idiot. It doesn't really have anything to do with being gay. Presumably he's straight if his friend is trying to tell him about hot girls. Boobs not being sexual just made for a fun left-wingish anti-science statement. They don't really serve any purpose other than being sexy, which is why no other mammal has them. Nipples yes, boobs no.
precarious
 

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby Kimra » Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:40 pm

precarious wrote:They don't really serve any purpose other than being sexy, which is why no other mammal has them. Nipples yes, boobs no.


What's an udder?
King Prawn
User avatar
Kimra
He-Man in a Miniskirt
 
Posts: 6872
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:18 am
Location: meanwhile elsewhere

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby Edminster » Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:04 pm

precarious wrote:no other mammal has them

Image
Image
ol qwerty bastard wrote:bitcoin is backed by math, and math is intrinsically perfect and logically consistent always

gödel stop spreading fud
User avatar
Edminster
Tested positive for Space-AIDS
 
Posts: 8845
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: Internet

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby smiley_cow » Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:24 pm

Gangler wrote:Now am I mistaken in thinking that there are actually cultures where breasts aren't considered sexual?


Nope. At least there are cultures where breasts aren't considered near as sexual as we do. And most definitely areas of the world where they aren't worth having to cover up. (I read an article somewhere once, and I wish I could still find it, but it did feature the line from an African tribesman somewhere saying something along the lines of "You suck on breasts like a baby!?")

Personally I don't think the sexualization of breasts is entirely cultural since nipples are an erogenous zone, but I think the level we've sexualized them to, and certainly the fact that we've sexualized certain types of breasts over others are entirely cultural.

precarious wrote:They don't really serve any purpose other than being sexy, which is why no other mammal has them. Nipples yes, boobs no.


Now I could be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure the primary purpose of breasts is producing milk.
DonRetrasado wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Bitcoin.
User avatar
smiley_cow
polite but murderous
 
Posts: 6518
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: The vast and desolate prairies

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby grin2b » Thu Sep 01, 2011 4:57 pm

Man, you guys are having the exact same error that has me irritated with this comic :P

Breasts feed--ok, we all get that. But, point is, you can have a social attraction to anything and justify it, based on the desired functionality/trait that attribute represents. Big boobs, for instance, are very much culturally isolated. No more than a century ago, flapper girls were considered the epitome of attractive, and they were flat as ironing boards. Speaking of which, does anyone remember "Twiggy?"

The sad irony is that, as precarious points out, this comic is about avoiding partisan parochialism--but Zach's apparent lack of historical knowledge is itself historically parochial. :P Further, it's almost dangerous to claim that attraction is "evolved," when patriarchy actually has placed tremendous pressure on the shape of women's bodies. And, while everything within life truly is evolution, that doesn't mean evolution operates strictly on organisms, genes, or even epigenes: See, for instance, neural Darwinism. This is the means by which socialization and evolution truly overlap, and the area in which stereotypical ev-psych explanations rightly blur.

But, it's just a damn comic, and I'm only posting cuz I'm bored at work. Tschus!
grin2b
 

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby Kpyolysis » Thu Sep 01, 2011 4:59 pm

I think what he was referring to was that humans are, iirc, the only mammals whose breasts are constantly engorged. Most mammals' breasts shrink down when they do not have young to feed
Kpyolysis
 

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby Edminster » Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:05 pm

grin2b wrote:But, it's just a damn comic, and I'm only posting cuz I'm bored at work. Tschus!

Register a gorramed account already! you post often enough to justify it, plus your opinions aren't absurdly obnoxious!
ol qwerty bastard wrote:bitcoin is backed by math, and math is intrinsically perfect and logically consistent always

gödel stop spreading fud
User avatar
Edminster
Tested positive for Space-AIDS
 
Posts: 8845
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: Internet

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby smiley_cow » Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:13 pm

Kpyolysis wrote:I think what he was referring to was that humans are, iirc, the only mammals whose breasts are constantly engorged. Most mammals' breasts shrink down when they do not have young to feed


I don't think you understand human biology very well.
DonRetrasado wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Bitcoin.
User avatar
smiley_cow
polite but murderous
 
Posts: 6518
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: The vast and desolate prairies

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby Edminster » Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:29 pm

Edminster wrote:
grin2b wrote:But, it's just a damn comic, and I'm only posting cuz I'm bored at work. Tschus!

Register a gorramed account already! you post often enough to justify it, plus your opinions aren't absurdly obnoxious!

thaaaaaank youuuuuuu
ol qwerty bastard wrote:bitcoin is backed by math, and math is intrinsically perfect and logically consistent always

gödel stop spreading fud
User avatar
Edminster
Tested positive for Space-AIDS
 
Posts: 8845
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: Internet

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby Thomas Largedick » Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:49 pm

I'm a big fan of breasts, I like a B cup.

However, I prefer a nice firm ass.

Yes, please.
Thomas Largedick
 

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby Lethal Interjection » Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:09 pm

Kimra wrote:Is Mitchell the fat one? I can see him saying that.


Actually, no. Mitch is the redhead.
User avatar
Lethal Interjection
Death by Elocution
 
Posts: 8059
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: Behind your ear. It's magic!

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby Crimson_RTR » Thu Sep 01, 2011 7:57 pm

After consideration, I believe the comic points out an inherent hypocrisy with some degrees of feminism. Namely, the position being criticized insists that men have been "brainwashed" by a male dominated society into believing that women's bodies and various parts of their anatomy such as breasts are sexually attractive, thereby furthering the objectification of women.

The fact that the redhead in the comic decries "right-wing science denialists" for not using reason and objectivity( but rather emotion and subjective bias) and then makes a completely subjective claim ( perhaps being brainwashed by the "matriarchy" ) that breast are not inherently sexual shows a lack of inquiry as to the function of breasts themselves. Consider this, human women develop breasts at the beginning of puberty which grow to comically large sizes when compared to other mammals. This growth is independent of milk production or pregnancy and would serve little purpose in a classic evolution model of adaptation to environmental cues. Rather, breasts themselves may be the product of sexual selection which is the same process that drives male peacocks' colorful feathers. This establishes a theoretical basis to state "Human breasts are the product of sexual selection in early man" completely negating the feminist viewpoint in this comic.

The humor itself comes from recognizing the dissonance between these two views. On the one hand, the red head states he firmly believes in science and the power of rational objectivity, but simultaneously makes a statement of fact that all breast-loving men have been influenced completely by the nurture side of psychology without any consideration for the nature side: the side that theoretically gave rise to breasts in the first place.

Bam! :geek:
Crimson_RTR
 

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby Gangler » Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:09 pm

smiley_cow wrote:
Gangler wrote:Now am I mistaken in thinking that there are actually cultures where breasts aren't considered sexual?


Nope. At least there are cultures where breasts aren't considered near as sexual as we do. And most definitely areas of the world where they aren't worth having to cover up. (I read an article somewhere once, and I wish I could still find it, but it did feature the line from an African tribesman somewhere saying something along the lines of "You suck on breasts like a baby!?")

Personally I don't think the sexualization of breasts is entirely cultural since nipples are an erogenous zone, but I think the level we've sexualized them to, and certainly the fact that we've sexualized certain types of breasts over others are entirely cultural.

Ah, that makes sense. Mostly the degree and manner in which they're sexualized that's cultural.

Personally I'm into the smaller ones. A lot of people just seem to think "Biggest boob is best boob" to such an extreme degree that full blown melons that can barely be contained by standardized cuts of fabric are great.

Then these assholes take pencil to paper and I'm just like "What are we even doing here? You killed it. You killed boobs for me"

I definitely subscribe to the old adage. "More than a handful is a waste."
Last edited by Gangler on Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Paranoid? Probably. But just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that there isn't an invisible demon
about to eat your face.
User avatar
Gangler
watashi wa kawaii desu ne ^o^;
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 11:42 pm

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby Edminster » Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:33 pm

Gangler wrote:I definitely subscribe to the old adage. "More than a handful is a waste."

According to a reverse image search you like Imageteen incest hentaiImage.

Stop Posting Creepy Shit.
ol qwerty bastard wrote:bitcoin is backed by math, and math is intrinsically perfect and logically consistent always

gödel stop spreading fud
User avatar
Edminster
Tested positive for Space-AIDS
 
Posts: 8845
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: Internet

PreviousNext

Return to Latest Comic Discussion 3: Revenge of the Son of Latest Comic Discussion 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests