I find it hard to believe you don’t read your own posts.
You did admit that in a thread about the veracity of our memories, and figuring out how we can make sure our memories are TRUE.
And you came along and, unlike every other poster, basically said that you don’t care what’s true.
(But I do agree with you, if you’re just trying for fiction-writing, go for broke! Whatever makes a great story)
Shit, I’m actually going to defend HDBC in saying that taking your own experiences and then embellishing them is a great technique for writing fiction. “Write what you know” is a cliche for a reason; it works. Just look and see how Stephen King writes everything taking place in Maine where he lives, and many of his protagonists are writers.
(This is the only way that I’m defending him, but I gotta give him credit in the rare case where it’s due.)
I don’t.
It was mean spirited because the stuff hb proposed was really gross. It also had some nasty connotations about women.
We’re talking about two different threads. The thread I was referring to was about whether behavior can cause changes in DNA (or something like that – it was pretty all over the place).
Yeah, I’m talking about that thread. That’s the one that was all about how important seminal fluid is.
Got it. I didn’t get the nasty connotations, but I trust you on that.
There’s a long history of claims that seminal fluid is more important in reproduction than it actually is; in some cases downgrading the female contribution to nothing other than an incubator.
I don’t know if Honeybadger’s aware of that history, consciously or unconsciously. But there certainly seems to me to be at least an echo of it in that thread. Note that he isn’t asking whether the woman’s thoughts might (also) affect the pregnancy – which seems to me more likely to function in some fashion or other than the highly implausible and in some cases clearly false claims that he is making.
IIRC from the one cite he actually posted, there was a mention of a link there. But it’s not what he was on about, so I didn’t mention it. Also, it’s not entirely clear if they’re talking about this happening on a biological or behavioral level. That is, is she decided who to mate with based on these things or is her body decided which sperm to allow through based on these things.
females may evolve preferences for males with the most beneficial seminal fluid. Conversely, when the evolutionary interests of the sexes differ — as might occur through conflict over paternity when females take multiple mates — selection may favour seminal fluids that harm females. ‘Toxic’ seminal fluid components might promote fertilisation success when competing with the sperm of rival males, but result in collateral damage to females. Far from being passive bystanders, females may cryptically bias sperm use towards preferred males in response to seminal fluid traits, and evolve counter strategies to minimise any negative effects of seminal fluid receipt. This initiates a so-called ‘arms race’ between the sexes, further driving seminal-fluid evolution.
Did he actually post any cite? I thought somebody else found that site, and thought it might be what Honeybadger had been reading; and it wasn’t at all clear whether Honeybadger agreed with that or not.
I didn’t read the site, only other’s reports about it in the thread. If Honeybadger wasn’t actually claiming it, and as the people who were reading it all said it was nonsense, I didn’t see any need to.
– In any case a) it didn’t seem to be what Honeybadger was on about and b) such claims have their own sort of dubious history – they often carry a sense of ‘women are compelled by evolution to choose this type of sex partner, any rational portion of their brains has nothing to do with it’.
(All genders of course choose their sex partners, if any, partially with arational parts of the brain – but many of all genders also use the rational portions, which often has a veto.)
That one, yes, he posted. But I don’t think he actually read it as it didn’t say what he seemed to think it said. For the purposes of that discussion, it was unrelated.
I should no better by now but when I opened that post I was hoping it would become a conversation starter assuming that we had a number of people here that had already studied somewhat alonf similar lines. My basic contention was and still is that seminal fluid and the production of sperm contain many of the same hormones and chemicals found in the spinal fluid. I saw an opportunity ofr them to possibly influence the behavior of the sperm that would favor some of them reaching the egg. I did find out reading more on it that the seminal fluid does play a part in introducing the sperm to the egg. And likewise with the female her eggs have exposure to the same chemicals produced in her body. Our neuro chemicals have never been interpreted but many scientists accept they convey a story. I don’t know the medical or scientific terms so maybe I shouldn’t bring things like this up, but nevertheless they are worth talking about.
Ya think?
Le sigh…
You can bring things like this up . . . but when folks that do know the medical or scientific terms maybe you should, oh I don’t know, maybe,
LISTEN TO WHAT THEY’RE FUCKING SAYING!
The subject of this thread may be fascinated by science, but he does not know a blame thing about it and, worse yet, is not interested in learning. Functionally, when it comes to questions of a scientific nature, he is no different than a troll. Basically, his MO is the anti-science equivalent of why the word how is considered a wh question word.
Once again: “I feel” does not count for a damn thing in science. Trying to discuss any scientific issue with a person who believes it does is fruitless at best.
The only " Claims" I made was that the reproductive system was more closely associated with the brain than any other part of our bodies. I was hoping to discuss these implications of this. I am not responsible for people intentionally misinterpreting things I say and adding snark and ridicule. Over and over I keep having to say I am not making claims, I am simply proposing possibilities’. My research I have done fully supports the direction I was going. It is a recognized area of research.
Yeah, that’s a dumb claim.
Bullshit. You’ve made more claims about scientific issues than that.
And I know I’m pissing in the wind here, but you really do owe me an apology for your little stunt in the ACC thread. Actually, you owe the entire scientific community an apology for your usual suspect behavior here.
No you were not. Discussion means listening and exchange. It means you asked a question and then shut up and learned. You don’t do this because you never do this. You ask your obnoxious, ignorant, and/or provocative questions, and then you sit back and ignore the intelligent responses and engage only to ensure the shit keeps getting stirred.
You are either a troll or you are intensely, spectacularly stupid. Though I suppose “both” is also plausible.
Fuck off.