[2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Blame Quintushalls for this.

Moderator: Kimra

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby Kaharz » Fri Sep 02, 2011 6:01 pm

Edminster wrote:I got bored and made an art

http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/3997987/Page_2


I got bored and read this thread, you are a better man than I. But we already knew that, didn't we?

As far as the correlation between breast size and attractiveness, I think there is generally a lot more to it than bigger = better. I'm much more drawn to proper proportioning than shear magnitude. A petite girl with large breasts looks off to me, while a petite girl with small breasts look right. /shrug

and just for Ed's art....

BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS BREASTS
Kaharz wrote:I don't need a title. I have no avatar or tagline either. I am unique in my lack of personal identifiers.
User avatar
Kaharz
This Intentionally Left Blank
 
Posts: 1572
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:17 pm

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby Edminster » Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:34 pm

Peter wrote:A posts link.
B does search on link, finds it can be found by searching for incest, links to incest, accuses A of posting creepy shit.
A apologises.

So close, and yet so far.
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: 8848
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: Internet

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby Kimra » Sat Sep 03, 2011 2:19 am

Edminster wrote:http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/3997987/Page_2

That really didn't seem to work so well, but after I clicked through to something else then back again it worked fine. I have no idea why this is. I am also proud to be part of your art.


None the boobless wrote:Little boobed woman's rambles.

I'm sorry to say this, but apparently your tiny boobs make people feel so sorry for you they tell you lies. All the time. But it's good to see that you stand by your opinions and will defend them to the faceless death. No-one is attracted to little boobs, they're all just pedophiles who don't have the guts to break the law.

Consider.
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 DonRetrasado » Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:58 am

I go away for one week and I get this.
Astrogirl wrote:Lethal, nobody wants to know about your herpes.

Lethal Interjection wrote:That's good to know. I can avoid a few awkward phone calls now.
User avatar
DonRetrasado
los más retrasadadados
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:27 am
Location: ¡Canada!

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby smiley_cow » Sun Sep 04, 2011 1:58 am

Just goes to show you should never leave us. Either that or you should never come back. >_>
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 GUTCHUCKER » Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:25 am

BOTH
Datanazush wrote:I ship Mohammed and Jehova.
User avatar
GUTCHUCKER
Gotchucker's less handsome twin
 
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:26 am
Location: Paradise City?

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby Anonynony » Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:57 pm

None wrote:As to the comic, I suspect it is indeed natural for males to be attracted to breasts, because I mean come on they are after all a sexual display.


What do you mean? They're on display because they stick out from the body? So do penises and testicles, but those aren't considered sexually attractive the way breasts are. I don't think it's unreasonable to think about the ways that culture influences what we learn to find sexually titillating.

Personally, I got a chuckle out of the comic (which is rather obviously taking a shot at feminists), although I thought it oversimplified both feminists and science, and by implication it gave science denialists too much credit. There's a different between denying physical realities that science demonstrates (e.g., evolution -- which has been shown to actually physically occur in observed tests -- or climate change, again, a physical reality that tests consistently point to) and differing over the reasons for emotional/mental reactions by human beings (these things can't really be studied in test settings as any 100% reliable test would violate ethics rules -- human reactions are so infinitely complex that trying to explain them requires controlling for variables it's unethical to control). And there aren't too many feminists who argue that there's no physical component to sexual attraction -- most tend to argue something along the lines, rather, that society emphasizes some forms of sexual expression and attraction over others, and denigrates those that don't fall into the dominant paradigm. So, someone who finds penises sexually attractive doesn't fit with the dominant paradigm, and therefore attraction to penises isn't widely acknowledged as something normal or common. Conversely, it's completely socially acceptable to talk about the sexual attractiveness of breasts, and people are presumed to be attracted to breasts even if they aren't.

To be fair, thanks to the sexual revolution and the broadening acceptance of straight women's and gay men's sexuality, these trends are slowly changing.
Anonynony
 

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby Quintushalls » Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:33 am

Breasts remind men of the ass. The rounder, the better, because a healthy ass shows something about her ability to care childbirth. This goes to the same of how facial symmetry shows good genetics. Somehow, the response of tubular breasts that are better for babies to drink from, didn't cross over in the evolutionary process. This explains why women are more attracted to dominating males versus the intelligent geek. The question in evolution is to ask why the intelligent geek isn't the dominating male if intelligence would be more beneficial in the gene pool?
Quintushalls
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:32 pm

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby DonRetrasado » Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:50 am

Quintushalls wrote:Breasts remind men of the ass. The rounder, the better, because a healthy ass shows something about her ability to care childbirth.

I imagined this in the voice of my dad, drunk off his ass, which is strange because he does not drink. Or maybe Tom Waits. "It's genetics!"
Astrogirl wrote:Lethal, nobody wants to know about your herpes.

Lethal Interjection wrote:That's good to know. I can avoid a few awkward phone calls now.
User avatar
DonRetrasado
los más retrasadadados
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:27 am
Location: ¡Canada!

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby grin2b » Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:56 pm

Mr. Crimson: A preference can be socialized (or conditioned), while bodies can evolve to meet conditioned preferences. Patriarchy (or, in some species, matriarchy) can exist without agricultural societies: This should be obvious. Therefore, bodies that appease sexual power dynamics will be selected for on the level of the gene, even if the sexual power dynamics are not actually genetically selected. Furthermore, even if there is some fundamental biological drive towards big breasts, it's profoundly difficult to say that this desire is actually being expressed, given that society has drowned us in superstimuli of all sorts. I will still note that there have been many, many times in history where women with small breasts were considered the norm, so even if some fundamental/biological drive exists, it is readily overpowered by social circumstances. Heck, even the focus we have on breasts is relative to our culture: In other cultures, other body parts are considered more sexually salient.

And, perhaps most importantly: Why focus so strictly on segments of women's bodies? Even if breasts are inherently attractive, what awfulness does it suggest that we focus on said woman's breasts, and not her intellect/personality? Even if we think teenagers are just drowning in sexuality or hormones or whatever, it still seems limiting to belittle someone's desire to escape such a narrowminded view of sexuality. That itself suggests that patriarchy is still very much in play.

Mr. Guest: "It'd be a less functional male who didn't respond sexually to an obvious sexual cue." You, sir, are a troll or an imbecile.
grin2b
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:20 pm

Re: [2011-Aug-31] Science Denialists

Postby Apocalyptus » Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:50 am

Quintushalls wrote:This explains why women are more attracted to dominating males versus the intelligent geek.

Does it? Evolutionary psych is pretty much all guesswork based on stereotypes from what I've seen.
And the assumption that 'women' (I assume you mean most women) don't like geeks and do like 'dominating' males seems a little suspect as well. Plenty of women (myself included, although maybe I don't count because I am a geek also) find nerdy smart guys to be the height of attractiveness.
I think the confusion stems from the fact that women are drawn to confidence and self assurance (as I'm sure men are also), qualities which young intelligent geeks of either gender do not generally have in spades as much in their younger years.
Kimra wrote:Next they'll be denying us the right to say "We'll rape your arse if you don't come to this fucken country."
User avatar
Apocalyptus
Not what you were expecting
 
Posts: 5301
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:00 pm
Location: Melbourne

Previous

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 7 guests