Those sick assholes think r--- is justified by evolution? Wrong.
This is in response to some infuriating claims made by people recently, apparently desperate to have their names published somewhere in some notebook, even if the notebook itself is not endorsed by the scientific community. These damned claims keep coming back to life like zombies that refuse to shut it and die.
Really? So being a slave to one's basal instincts is considered evolution? Not having any control over one's actions, not having the ability to prevent violent thoughts from turning into violent actions.
Jeebus kraist, I thought we had put this one to the grave a long time ago. Lord. We have already taken care of this accident of brain farts. This has been dealt with, this has been debunked, discredited, exposed for the sham that it is. Fellow real scientists and not perpetuators of this wannabe pseudoscience drivel, back me up here.
This is sickening. Do I really have to sit here and launch into a long treatise on philosophy from an abstract winding road about why it is wrong? Isn't it common sense, for goddess's sake? It's wrong, it's gross, it's filthy, what else do you need to know?
Not having any control over one's urge to commit an act of violence? Wrong. Not evolution. A creature wants to devolve back to being an ape or dog or baboon? Then fine, commit all the crimes you want.
But if you want to evolve into a human being, you don't violate people. In higher animals, *social* benefits take precedent over physical benefits. This is the reason that intelligent, kind people who are sensitive to others' feelings are considered more evolved than people who think that looting and raping capabilities determine advantageousness.
Violating another human being's right to bodily autonomy, sense of self, and dignity is not "evolution." It is savagery, degeneration, and primitivity. If this -- abject force without any regard to morality, ethics, is considered "evolution," then using good judgment in any form should be considered anti-evolution. This is following this argument to its logical conclusion. The crime of r-- is considered evolution by certain people that call themselves "scientists," only because a physical goal of outcome, pregnancy, has taken precedence over any psychological goal of outcome of consent, trust, agreement.
And, as other feminists have said before me -- holy crap. And you think feminists hate men? The notion that men cannot control violent urges and in fact try to justify it, is possibly one of the most misandrous, man-hating statements ever made in the history of the planet. Males are troglodytes, sickeningly subhuman apes, that are incapable of controlling their actions -- that is what these r--as-evolution promoters are saying. You wanna talk about male-bashing!
It is about dominance and power. That is it.
Geez, people. I never thought I'd see the day that I would have to explain basic Psychology 101 to post-graduate evolutionary biologists.
-Really? So if some sicko r-s a woman in the mouth or in the anus --look up crime statistics, this does happen-- I guess he's just hoping that she will become pregnant in this manner.
Or with inanimate objects. I guess this sick sad asshole is hoping his sperm will magically osmose over to the aforementioned object and then manage to get transplanted in the victim's cervix. sidenote: uggggg gagggg. I had to look away from the computer screen as I typed that because it was beyond nauseating. But it was a point I had to make so I am retaining it in this essay.
In other words, the criminal will brutalize and violate whoever he sets his sights on at the moment. Those sick a--hole evolutionists think that just because the victim happens to be female in many cases, this automatically indicates an evolutionary incentive?
Those sick a---hole evolutionists think__
Homosexual men do commit rape as well, against other men. (I am well aware that liberals scratch and claw desperately at the notion that all gays are pure-hearted lily white angelic little angels. Sorry to burst your bubbles, kids, but that is simply a lie.) I suppose as the argument that r-- is motivated by evolutionary reasons of continuing one's genes, homosexual rapists are excellent proof of this. After all, sperm can of course impregnate a man through the anus and settle in the testes, resulting in a pregnancy.
Wrong. The true reason, and like I said this is something that students of medicine, psychology, and any of the social sciences learn in the first semester of introductory Psychology, is the old one.
r-- is always about subjugating someone. It is not about sex, it is not about reproduction. Only thing is that now when these "evolutionary psychologists" rearrange their prejudices, they just say that when the victim is a woman and there is a very specific set of characteristics that the crime must follow a pattern of, she happens to run the risk of becoming pregnant.
I've got more examples of why this premise is one hundred percent false.
We see this with dogs. Dogs hump other dogs, dogs hump humans, male dogs hump other male dogs. This is to establish dominance. A male dog does not care that it cannot get another male dog pregnant, and that's not the point anyway. The point of this activity is to humiliate the um, receiving dog, to basically (forgive me) hump it into submission. a dog can also identify members of its own species. A dog will not hump a human trying to get it pregnant. A dog does this to exert power over the human. Simply because dogs do this the wrong way and therefore it does not risk resulting in a pregnancy, we laugh about it.
We see this with chickens on a farm. A group of chickens will quickly establish a pecking order. This is about dominance and hierarchy in the social group. This is true with numerous animals that live in any sort of social group.
Suppose a woman turns down a date. Then suppose the sick individual sneaks after her, follows her home, and what is his mindset? Is he thinking, yay i really have to make sure she gets pregnant because this might be my last chance to sire a child. Or as is most likely the case
We see this from the few r-ists that do get caught and sent to jail. The sick individual at the time he committed the crime was in fact thinking__
We see this in male prisons. According to evolutionary psychologists, r-- is due to evolution and reproduction, after all. Really? So prison rapes occur because the r-ist is hoping that he will somehow manage to impregnate the victim's rectum?
It is time to face the facts, evolutionary psychologists. Your chosen discipline, as it were, is a joke. It has been debunked. It is about domineering over someone. Rest now. The argument has been settled.
The good of the whole entire society must take precedence over a supposed "right" of any one individual to reproduce. Ants and bees, other social insects. They work together as a cohesive team. Sure it's all instinct and they don't make the conscious decision to do it, but the fact remains that they do what is best for the whole society. None of this individual-assaults-and-dominates-another-member-of-society-to-its-own-ends crap. No individual ant has the right to upend any other individual in hopes of getting its own agenda ahead. And r-- most certainly is not justified in the light of evolution. r-- is a selfish, cruel, vile act that completely violates any right to sense of self, any bodily autonomy of the victim.
Even out in the wild, a female will only allow a male to mount her when she is in heat -- a specific season of the year. Any other time, the males can forget it.
What is the core reason that r-- is considered an evolutionary advantage? Is it because this would physically produce a child? Well, hell, anyone that has read my past essays would realize how much of a ludicrous, trifling argument that is. For example, if physical presence is the only criterion for evolution, it is well-known that elephants, lions, tigers, and bears, not to mention a large portion of the menagerie of the primate order, are much more physically gifted than humans. Perhaps we humans should just step down with our puny teeth and soft fingernails, and allow these animals dominion over us.
*****I have recently been astonished, my jaw hit the floor, but then it snapped back up in a huge smile of vindication and relief.
You cannot imagine the immense relief I felt when I learned that actual scientists, i.e., those that study the critical sciences, math, engineering, and technology, do not take the "evolutionary psychologists" seriously at all. Very interesting. So these so called free-thinkers are not even respected within the field they think they invented.
This is in response to some infuriating claims made by people recently, apparently desperate to have their names published somewhere in some notebook, even if the notebook itself is not endorsed by the scientific community. These damned claims keep coming back to life like zombies that refuse to shut it and die.
Really? So being a slave to one's basal instincts is considered evolution? Not having any control over one's actions, not having the ability to prevent violent thoughts from turning into violent actions.
Jeebus kraist, I thought we had put this one to the grave a long time ago. Lord. We have already taken care of this accident of brain farts. This has been dealt with, this has been debunked, discredited, exposed for the sham that it is. Fellow real scientists and not perpetuators of this wannabe pseudoscience drivel, back me up here.
This is sickening. Do I really have to sit here and launch into a long treatise on philosophy from an abstract winding road about why it is wrong? Isn't it common sense, for goddess's sake? It's wrong, it's gross, it's filthy, what else do you need to know?
Not having any control over one's urge to commit an act of violence? Wrong. Not evolution. A creature wants to devolve back to being an ape or dog or baboon? Then fine, commit all the crimes you want.
But if you want to evolve into a human being, you don't violate people. In higher animals, *social* benefits take precedent over physical benefits. This is the reason that intelligent, kind people who are sensitive to others' feelings are considered more evolved than people who think that looting and raping capabilities determine advantageousness.
Violating another human being's right to bodily autonomy, sense of self, and dignity is not "evolution." It is savagery, degeneration, and primitivity. If this -- abject force without any regard to morality, ethics, is considered "evolution," then using good judgment in any form should be considered anti-evolution. This is following this argument to its logical conclusion. The crime of r-- is considered evolution by certain people that call themselves "scientists," only because a physical goal of outcome, pregnancy, has taken precedence over any psychological goal of outcome of consent, trust, agreement.
And, as other feminists have said before me -- holy crap. And you think feminists hate men? The notion that men cannot control violent urges and in fact try to justify it, is possibly one of the most misandrous, man-hating statements ever made in the history of the planet. Males are troglodytes, sickeningly subhuman apes, that are incapable of controlling their actions -- that is what these r--as-evolution promoters are saying. You wanna talk about male-bashing!
It is about dominance and power. That is it.
Geez, people. I never thought I'd see the day that I would have to explain basic Psychology 101 to post-graduate evolutionary biologists.
-Really? So if some sicko r-s a woman in the mouth or in the anus --look up crime statistics, this does happen-- I guess he's just hoping that she will become pregnant in this manner.
Or with inanimate objects. I guess this sick sad asshole is hoping his sperm will magically osmose over to the aforementioned object and then manage to get transplanted in the victim's cervix. sidenote: uggggg gagggg. I had to look away from the computer screen as I typed that because it was beyond nauseating. But it was a point I had to make so I am retaining it in this essay.
In other words, the criminal will brutalize and violate whoever he sets his sights on at the moment. Those sick a--hole evolutionists think that just because the victim happens to be female in many cases, this automatically indicates an evolutionary incentive?
Those sick a---hole evolutionists think__
Homosexual men do commit rape as well, against other men. (I am well aware that liberals scratch and claw desperately at the notion that all gays are pure-hearted lily white angelic little angels. Sorry to burst your bubbles, kids, but that is simply a lie.) I suppose as the argument that r-- is motivated by evolutionary reasons of continuing one's genes, homosexual rapists are excellent proof of this. After all, sperm can of course impregnate a man through the anus and settle in the testes, resulting in a pregnancy.
Wrong. The true reason, and like I said this is something that students of medicine, psychology, and any of the social sciences learn in the first semester of introductory Psychology, is the old one.
r-- is always about subjugating someone. It is not about sex, it is not about reproduction. Only thing is that now when these "evolutionary psychologists" rearrange their prejudices, they just say that when the victim is a woman and there is a very specific set of characteristics that the crime must follow a pattern of, she happens to run the risk of becoming pregnant.
I've got more examples of why this premise is one hundred percent false.
We see this with dogs. Dogs hump other dogs, dogs hump humans, male dogs hump other male dogs. This is to establish dominance. A male dog does not care that it cannot get another male dog pregnant, and that's not the point anyway. The point of this activity is to humiliate the um, receiving dog, to basically (forgive me) hump it into submission. a dog can also identify members of its own species. A dog will not hump a human trying to get it pregnant. A dog does this to exert power over the human. Simply because dogs do this the wrong way and therefore it does not risk resulting in a pregnancy, we laugh about it.
We see this with chickens on a farm. A group of chickens will quickly establish a pecking order. This is about dominance and hierarchy in the social group. This is true with numerous animals that live in any sort of social group.
Suppose a woman turns down a date. Then suppose the sick individual sneaks after her, follows her home, and what is his mindset? Is he thinking, yay i really have to make sure she gets pregnant because this might be my last chance to sire a child. Or as is most likely the case
We see this from the few r-ists that do get caught and sent to jail. The sick individual at the time he committed the crime was in fact thinking__
We see this in male prisons. According to evolutionary psychologists, r-- is due to evolution and reproduction, after all. Really? So prison rapes occur because the r-ist is hoping that he will somehow manage to impregnate the victim's rectum?
It is time to face the facts, evolutionary psychologists. Your chosen discipline, as it were, is a joke. It has been debunked. It is about domineering over someone. Rest now. The argument has been settled.
The good of the whole entire society must take precedence over a supposed "right" of any one individual to reproduce. Ants and bees, other social insects. They work together as a cohesive team. Sure it's all instinct and they don't make the conscious decision to do it, but the fact remains that they do what is best for the whole society. None of this individual-assaults-and-dominates-another-member-of-society-to-its-own-ends crap. No individual ant has the right to upend any other individual in hopes of getting its own agenda ahead. And r-- most certainly is not justified in the light of evolution. r-- is a selfish, cruel, vile act that completely violates any right to sense of self, any bodily autonomy of the victim.
Even out in the wild, a female will only allow a male to mount her when she is in heat -- a specific season of the year. Any other time, the males can forget it.
What is the core reason that r-- is considered an evolutionary advantage? Is it because this would physically produce a child? Well, hell, anyone that has read my past essays would realize how much of a ludicrous, trifling argument that is. For example, if physical presence is the only criterion for evolution, it is well-known that elephants, lions, tigers, and bears, not to mention a large portion of the menagerie of the primate order, are much more physically gifted than humans. Perhaps we humans should just step down with our puny teeth and soft fingernails, and allow these animals dominion over us.
*****I have recently been astonished, my jaw hit the floor, but then it snapped back up in a huge smile of vindication and relief.
You cannot imagine the immense relief I felt when I learned that actual scientists, i.e., those that study the critical sciences, math, engineering, and technology, do not take the "evolutionary psychologists" seriously at all. Very interesting. So these so called free-thinkers are not even respected within the field they think they invented.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment