Quote from Feminist_Scum

I read the scum manifesto months ago. It was ridiculous nonsense. Life is all about reproducing, and how would any species reproduce with out 2 sexes?

Here's something which sounds just as stupid:

I now scientifically claim that because women don't have a penis, that their genitalia is in complete. Because the female genitalia is incomplete, it needs a penis inside of it for the woman to become whole.

You got through the Scum Manifesto? I couldn't get past the first paragraph before I had to stop because of the nausea. *bows respectfully to FS*

Can't argue with your claim too vigorously!

Quote from ACLAF

Do we really treat such weapons-grade ignorance with consideration?

Yes, sadly we do in the West.

Just to pick one point: haven't the life sciences examined the differences between asexual and sexual reproduction strategies? I thought there were clear evolutionary advantages to the latter (?)

Wow Myce I followed the link you left and it was very ineresting and it certainly does support what you said about embryos being gender neutral. Either what I read was wrong or I misunderstood whatever it was I read. That link was great and medically it makes more sense than the embryo switching sexes. Thanks for the updated info it is always good to learn something new.

I read the SCUM manifesto all the way through as well. The most ludicrous part of the entire thing had to be the way she tried to explain why women, being superior to men, have been a consistent and spectacular failure compared to us in virtually every respect since the dawn of time. She basically said that men have managed to convince women that all the attributes possessed by either sex were in fact the property of the other. So in other words the reason women have never done anything of note is because the stupid men convinced them that they really lazy, stupid males.

In a way she's right though, men are the warrior form of the human race. Our job is to make the world safe for weak woman who cant survive on her own. If there were no dangers to contend with man would be essentially redundant, we would have completed our purpose.

Quote from TheOldOligarch

...men are the warrior form of the human race. Our job is to make the world safe for weak woman who cant survive on her own. If there were no dangers to contend with man would be essentially redundant, we would have completed our purpose.

You've never seen two women fighting dirty with each other, and who comes to their rescue? That's right. Guys.

Quote from chevalier

Wow Myce I followed the link you left and it was very ineresting and it certainly does support what you said about embryos being gender neutral. Either what I read was wrong or I misunderstood whatever it was I read. That link was great and medically it makes more sense than the embryo switching sexes. Thanks for the updated info it is always good to learn something new.

I am more than happy to correct misconceptions on biology where I find them, and there do seem to be a few floating around. Another myth about embryos is that they have gills- no, they don't. Humans are almost indistinguishable from fish or any other vertebrate in the early stages, but that doesn't mean they are fish.

One misconception regarding evolution (and there are many of those too I think) is that it's all random chance. Wrong! Evolution is nothing like a tornado in a junk yard, but is a very elegant engine of creation. Random chance mutation is a like spark plug which is essential to the functioning of the machine but is only a small part of it.

One more .. I have a pet peeve about the overabundance of disinfectants, sanitizers, antimicrobials and all of that. Only a tiny minority of microbes will hurt you, a few are opportunistic and attack only those with weak immune systems, but most will not hurt anyone. People who use all of this junk are no healthier than those who don't. It's like killing your whole lawn to get rid of the weeds and may actually do more harm in the long run.

Now thanks for listening and allowing me to indulge my urge to soapbox on these topics! Lol.

I would much rather work off of good information and be able to make informed decisions. The other option is to work off of bad information like the feminists do and pass on the stupidity of beleiving only what you want to.

What Myce said reminded me, I heard an interview with Michael Cremo the other day, (the guy who wrote "Forbidden Archaeology"). He said they found two skulls in the same strata in the Olduvai Gorge in Africa - one of Homo Habilis, and Homo Erectus. They were not thought before to have existed at the same time. He also went on to say that Homo Sapiens could have existed at the same time. I have to listen again to see how he connected that part - I was doing other stuff at the same time. Anyway, if that turns out to be correct, it throws all of our ideas of evolution straight out the window. How interesting is that?

Quote from KellyMac

What Myce said reminded me, I heard an interview with Michael Cremo the other day, (the guy who wrote "Forbidden Archaeology"). He said they found two skulls in the same strata in the Olduvai Gorge in Africa - one of Homo Habilis, and Homo Erectus. They were not thought before to have existed at the same time. He also went on to say that Homo Sapiens could have existed at the same time. I have to listen again to see how he connected that part - I was doing other stuff at the same time. Anyway, if that turns out to be correct, it throws all of our ideas of evolution straight out the window. How interesting is that?

Out of curiosity, I looked into this guy some more and he seems to claim that humans have been around for millions of years. That could be true I suppose, I don't know enough about human evolution specifically to comment without further investigation. But I am suspicious of anyone who claims that he is a rebel against the scientific establishment or that there is some conspiracy to cover up knowledge. The scientific consensus on any subject could be wrong and scientists can be biased or dogmatic, but science is also self-correcting. If the scientist wants an idea accepted, it must be proven to have merit. Failing that, there is a good chance the idea was wrong. The fact that author cites religious text and uses fuzzy concepts like "spirit" discredits him altogether as a scientific thinker. Not that spirits and religion don't have merit, but they are a different thing from science. Mixing the two is an intellectual faux pas that could potentially damage the integrity of both disciplines.