Well, I succeeded in getting you all labeled anti science!

[boston bean]

Sorry! Wasn't my intention. Nor am I anti science.

But someone sent me this jury and I think it's important that you all see the time and effort is given to get a hide. Luckily, this one went my way and I'm happy the jury saw through it:

Mail Message
On Sun Feb 16, 2014, 11:43 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

I'm sorry, but you don't go telling black people
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4509766

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

boston bean has insisted throughout this thread that human beings are not apes, but if anyone tries to correct her she comes back with this argument: if you suggest that human beings are apes, you are telling black people that they are apes, ergo you are a racist. If you scroll through this thread you'll see boston bean repeatedly making this argument to people who are merely trying to give her the facts. The argument "humans aren't apes and if you say they are you're a racist" seems like such a logical stretch that it is hard to believe boston bean is doing anything but trolling in this thread.

As a Juror looking at this individual post my guess is that you'll be inclined to leave it alone because it doesn't contain anything specifically worth hiding - however, I encourage you to look at boston bean's behavior throughout this entire thread. She is not this stupid - she is trolling.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Feb 16, 2014, 11:58 AM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: why was this alerted? Who alerted? I doubt the alerter is "stupid" either. They know (as do most on this long tedious thread) that BB was not denying evolution or the classification of hominids, but rather the posts suggesting that the genetic "closeness" implies women are no different than Bonobos when it comes to sex. Admins? Damn it is time to take a look at the rampant and crass misogyny on this website.

Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Plenty of Menz trolling this thread as well. The same group. Always the same group of guys.

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While I do wonder why(though a couple of reasons come to mind), I decided to, "Leave it alone", if only to be a means to an end, i.e.... this isn't really the way to do things; arguing tomato, tomahto, reegan, raygun, lets call the whole thing off!

Towards enlightenment.

Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Her comments annoying (although to be more accurate humans are not apes but we share common ancestors with modern apes -- we are apelike hominids), but I'm voting to let it stand, sorry.

Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: All humans are apes. Not all apes are human. Pointing this out is not offensive.

[Squinch]

1. No you didn't. What happened in that thread was that a lot of asses got a chance to show off

their unmitigated assery.

And they went to town. Epic assery on display, from those who are epic asses.

[cinnabonbon]

2. I love that ALL of them saw through it. Good Jury!

The last one is my favourite, though.

All humans are apes. Not all apes are human. Pointing this out is not offensive.

So succinct!

[seabeyond]

5. all the jury saw, and surprisingly not the men arguing their position because they need to hold onto

that old evo psych.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. I think the Alerter is the one TROLLING like a fucking BOSS

I think there are several (few, ymmv) on here that are TROLLING like a BOSS.

That alert message is offensively trollish behavior.

I agree with Juror #1.

Misogynist Troll is a PPR offense and I would like to see it on more PPRs.

[seabeyond]

4. first i was gonna fall in love with juror one, then one and three... screw it, love 'em all. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. Juror #4 is getting extra points from me for including

enlightenment in the comment.

love that word.

ethereal
esoteric
enlightenment

something about the letter .... e ...

[sufrommich]

7. I understood what you were trying to say.

Don't confuse the usual suspects attempts to derail by being deliberately obtuse as anything other than a game they play. It's incredibly childish.

[boston bean]

9. I've seen other ones like this too.

teach boston bean a lesson... etc etc etc..

[ismnotwasm]

10. Meh

If they want to Run around forests and forage they can go ahead. If they want to ignore established scientific disciplines such as biology, anthropology, cultural history--hell we can toss in botany if were going to talk about diets and such. As well as evolution itself--I was getting impression a few who holler evolution know very little about it.

A classification is a classification is a classification. Human being have a classification but as I said a time or two; the doesn't mean we pick fleas off each other.

[ismnotwasm]

11. Just for fun

The closest living relatives of humans are chimpanzees (genus Pan) and gorillas (genus Gorilla).With the sequencing of both the human and chimpanzee genome, current estimates of similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA sequences range between 95% and 99%. By using the technique called a molecular clock which estimates the time required for the number of divergent mutations to accumulate between two lineages, the approximate date for the split between lineages can be calculated. The gibbons (Hylobatidae) and orangutans (genus Pongo) were the first groups to split from the line leading to the humans, then gorillas (genus Gorilla) followed by the chimpanzees and bonobos (genus Pan). The splitting date between human and chimpanzee lineages is placed around 4–8 million years ago during the late Miocene epoch.
There is little fossil evidence for the divergence of the gorilla, chimpanzee and hominin lineages.

The earliest fossils that have been proposed as members of the hominin lineage are Sahelanthropus tchadensis dating from 7 million years ago, and Orrorin tugenensis dating from 5.7 million years ago and Ardipithecus kadabba dating to 5.6 million years ago. Each of these has been argued to be a bipedal ancestor of later hominins, but in each case the claims have been contested. It is also possible that either of these species is an ancestor of another branch of African apes, or that they represent a shared ancestor between hominins and other Hominoidea. The question of the relation between these early fossil species and the hominin lineage is still to be resolved. From these early species the australopithecines arose around 4 million years ago diverged into robust (also called Paranthropus) and gracile branches, one of which (possibly A. garhi) went on to become ancestors of the genus Homo.

The earliest members of the genus Homo are Homo habilis which evolved around 2.3 million years ago. Homo habilis is the first species for which we have positive evidence of use of stone tools. The brains of these early hominins were about the same size as that of a chimpanzee, and their main adaptation was bipedalism as an adaptation to terrestrial living. During the next million years a process of encephalization began, and with the arrival of Homo erectus in the fossil record, cranial capacity had doubled. Homo erectus were the first of the hominina to leave Africa, and these species spread through Africa, Asia, and Europe between 1.3 to 1.8 million years ago.

One population of H. erectus, also sometimes classified as a separate species Homo ergaster, stayed in Africa and evolved into Homo sapiens. It is believed that these species were the first to use fire and complex tools. The earliest transitional fossils between H. ergaster/erectus and archaic humans are from Africa such as Homo rhodesiensis, but seemingly transitional forms are also found at Dmanisi, Georgia. These descendants of African H. erectus spread through Eurasia from ca. 500,000 years ago evolving into H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis. The earliest fossils of anatomically modern humans are from the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago such as the Omo remains of Ethiopia and the fossils of Herto sometimes classified as Homo sapiens idaltu.

Later fossils of archaic Homo sapiens from Skhul in Israel and Southern Europe begin around 90,000 years ago.

So evolutionary wise, we started diverging from what we think of apes ape's 4--8. million years million years ago, this doesn't change the classification, but that never was the point was it?

I don't use wiki for every thing these days but this not a bad article on humans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human


And while a couple were trying to say something like this- the disrupters never let it get to a good kinks song level

[Tuesday Afternoon]

25. Thanks for the Kinks. Had forgotten that gem. Not to mention thanks for all the info.

Excellent post.

Killing it in here, lately and out there, too.

Rock On.

[MadrasT]

12. Oh look.

Here's a article from the Journal of Evolutionary Psychology that shreds the beloved happy-fucking-bonobo thesis posited by 'Sex At Dawn' (the book that started the bonobo madness amongst the evo-psych-loving men that love to hold up "BONOBOS!!!" as solid evidence that women should fuck them more).

It's a review of a whole book that shreds the "bonobo" nonsense as invalid bullshit from (OMG) even an evolutionary perspective.

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP10611616.pdf

The Myth of Promiscuity

A review of Lynn Saxon, Sex at Dusk: Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn.

The book Sex at Dawn was published in 2010 and quickly became a best-seller,
receiving kudos from well-known personages such as sex advice columnist Dan Savage,
and primatologist Frans de Waal (Savage calling it the ―most important book on human
sexuality‖ since Kinsey‘s 1948 Sexual Behavior of the Human Male1
; de Waal dubbing it
an ―exciting book‖ that raises issues that will ―need debating over and over‖2
). Sex at Dawn appears to have struck a chord with a certain starry- eyed segment of the reading public, as
well as some academics who should know better.
For those unfamiliar with Sex at Dawn (Ryan and Jethá, 2010), the main thrust of
the book is its claim that, contrary to conventional scientific wisdom—called the ―standard
narrative of evolutionary psychology‖—pair-bonding, sexual jealousy, a male concern with
paternity certainty, and host of other related traits are not ―natural‖ components of evolved
human sexuality. Rather, they are the product of the social arrangements attending the
emergence of agriculture beginning only about 10,000 years ago. Our true nature, the
authors of Sex at Dawn argue, is one closer to that of what they think bonobo sexuality is,
i.e., fluid, promiscuous sexual relations between all individuals, with little sexual conflict to
speak of. Ryan and Jethá argue that the evidence points to the conclusion that promiscuous
sexuality characterized our ancestral hunter-gatherer past, and that those evolutionary
scientists who formulated and uphold the ―standard narrative‖ are mistakenly projecting
modern, post-agricultural mores onto our ancestors as well as contemporary small-scale
societies.

While the book continues in its lay popularity, it has not achieved a position of
respect, or even much attention, from researchers who would likely be associated with the
so-called standard narrative. A call to arms suggested in a review of Sex at Dawn has gone virtually unheeded (Ellsworth, 2011). That is, until now. Independent scholar Lynn Saxon has taken up the task of writing a book-length meticulously researched critique of Sex at Dawn, titled Sex at Dusk: Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn. As will be shown
below, Saxon‘s critical analysis proves to be a thoroughly withering one, exposing not only
Sex at Dawn’s many, many misunderstandings, errors, omissions, and perhaps intentional
mistreatment of the ―evidence‖ of our ostensibly promiscuous sexual nature, but also an
ideological agenda buried in the mire of shoddy science. A chapter-by-chapter review of
the numerous problems addressed in the book would necessitate a grossly inappropriate
number of pages, and I therefore confine the forgoing to discussion of some of the more or
less overarching theoretical and ideological issues confronted in Sex at Dusk.

(snip)

In this analysis, Sex at Dawn has been caught with its ideological pants down.
―[R]ather than a plausible potential explanation of our evolution, [Dawn]…reveals itself as
a contemporary middle-class, child-free, sex-obsessed, male fantasy projected back onto
prehistory‖ (p. 209). ―The shiny, superficially egalitarian wrapping of ‗shared sex‘…makes
it no less of a male fantasy‖ (p. 201). Sex at Dusk raises the question of just how much of
what makes Sex at Dawn such an inaccurate portrayal of human sexuality can really be
chalked up to naivety on the part of its authors. After all, the sources cited by Ryan and
Jethá to support their claims are the very same sources that, examined more closely, Saxon
uses to refute them. I have always suspected that the popular appeal of Sex at Dawn lay in
the widespread tendency of people to see the world as they wish it to be, rather than how it
really is. If this is correct, Saxon‘s book will surely be anathema to the romantic devotees
of the Sex at Dawn story. But for those who wish to see the record set straight, or merely
learn more about who we are and where we came from, Sex at Dusk is sure to be
rewarding.

Ever since "Sex At Dawn" was published, I've thought that people who want to shove the bonobo bullshit down other people's throats are those who themselves feel sexually guilty/repressed and need the "bonobo" excuse to justify getting their groove on.

Yo, if you love to fuck, just own it... you don't need to point at bonobos as an excuse or a justification for it. Or to try to twist other people in to wanting to fuck you more. It's lame.

[seabeyond]

13. ISM.... loved yours. madrast, gonna love reading yours, first i need a hot fudge sundae

while i read.

thanks gals.

a fuckin 4.8 million years ago, lol. have we even gotten into the new info about our breeding outside our whatever or something.

[JI7]

14. lack of criticial thinking, similar to how some used the darwin to try to push their libertarian

economic bs.

[redqueen]

16. "an ideological agenda buried in the mire of shoddy science"

No wai!

Sex at Dawn has been caught with its ideological pants down. ―rather than a plausible potential explanation of our evolution, …reveals itself as a contemporary middle-class, child-free, sex-obsessed, male fantasy projected back onto prehistory‖ (p. 209). ―The shiny, superficially egalitarian wrapping of ‗shared sex‘…makes it no less of a male fantasy

It's so not surprising to see this.

All one has to do to determine the agenda being pushed by the knuckledraggers pushing this shit is spending two minutes listening to them drone on about their 'needs'.



So much of the shit posted by the usual suspects this weekend has been predictable and predictably stomach-churning.


Recently I saw that someone posted that he'd have said "wowsa" about me, but I have feminist opinions that kill boners.

It's nauesating knowing that I might inspire anything related to a "wowsa" from the kind of men ... well you know - but at least the idea that they think anyone besides their little club cares anything about their boners provides some gentle chortling in contrast.

[MadrasT]

17. This part is especially delicious:

So what is all this talk of human promiscuity in Dawn all about, really? When an argument so blatantly and so stubbornly persists in the face of what would seem to be clear, undeniable evidence against it, it is usually a good idea to look for something other than dispensation of accurate knowledge about the world as a motive. Frequently, the obverse of accurate understanding of how the world is, is ideological pronouncement on how the world ought to be.

Where Sex at Dusk really shines is in Saxon‘s exposé of the subtler prescriptive message of Dawn. Ryan and Jethá are not simply arguing for a revision of the scientific view of ancestral human sexuality as more promiscuous than the ―standard narrative would have it. Upon closer inspection, what they are actually up to is advocating for a change in contemporary human female sexual behavior, or at least a change in how everyone views women‘s sexuality; specifically, Dawn advocates a shift from women as whores, to women as sluts (e.g., pp. 64, 159)3.

[redqueen]

19. Yes it is.

Thank you so much for posting this here.

It's scary that PUA and MRA ideology is apparently influencing (what sometimes manages to pass for) academic research.

Maybe someone might post it in GD sometime, so that the people who really need to be disabused of these delusions might see it. LOL who am I kidding, we all know they stalk this group.

[sufrommich]

18. It's really a pretty disgusting premise to argue

that men are attracted to women and women to men on a purely evolutionary basis for so many reasons. As I said in that thread, labeling male to female attraction as the norm leaves many humans in the abnormal category,including every gay man and lesbian. It's basically using science to float the same prejudices that fundamentalists Christians use when they claim that "God made Adam and Eve,not Adam and Steve". It's just replacing science with religion. Using evolution to explain or justify human behavior is a dangerous slippery slope,historically it's been abused to further prejudice,as it is when used against women in this instance.

[MadrasT]

20. That is one of the things I find most deplorable about the argument.

It is stunningly heteronormative... and also requires a rigidly binary view of gender.

Neither of those things flies for me, not for a moment.

[sufrommich]

22. "Heteronormative" is the word I was trying to think of.

It would have saved me a lot of typing,for which I am notoriously slow .

[MadrasT]

23. I've had this argument so many times I have "heteronormative bullshit" on the tip of my tongue.

Heh.

[sufrommich]

24. Well,now I know who to hunt down when

I forget that word and I will most likely forget it eventually.

[redqueen]

21. Excellent points. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. that is what they did, at the same time, accusing us of being the ones doing it.

the twisted logic and perversity of it all.

thanks, sufromich.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

26. Posting Like A Boss -

Yo, if you love to fuck, just own it... you don't need to point at bonobos as an excuse or a justification for it. Or to try to twist other people in to wanting to fuck you more. It's lame.

[ismnotwasm]

29. The Evo-psych proponents used chimpanzees to justify "rape as adaptive as adaptive behavior"

Back when this nonsense first started, because chimps can be very sexually aggressive. They used statistical data from group samples of chimps showing the females were not always staying in the family group, but seeking elsewhere for progeny to justify a whole slutty women chapter in their bullshit. Probably a book on it

Bonobos are very sexual creatures-- and very bi-sexual creatures the males and females both. I'd like to get a hands up in our little macho group of guys celebrating their sexual diversity. Because Bonobos. Or does that only apply to women?

The other thing I noticed was that some people are doing is confusing Evo-psych with evolutionary biology-- the first is discredited quackery, the second respectable science.

[MadrasT]

30. I did not know about the chimp angle.

Lovely.

Yes, people do seem to confuse evo-psych and evolutionary biology all the time.

[Texasgal]

27. I hope whomever alerted your post

is now embarrassed. What a stupid alert.

I was going to reply in your thread but it looked like everyone already posted exactly what I was thinking!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

31. song dedication for you Boston Bean (because ... doors)

I got one and you want four
It's so hard to help you
I can't keep up with you no more
And you treat me like it's a sin
But you can't lock me in
You want me here with you right to the end
No thank you my friend
I fear the monkey in your soul

Won't you turn that bebop down
I can't hear my heart beat
Where's that fatback chord I found?
Honey don't you think it was wrong
To interrupt my song?
I'll pack my things and run so far from here
Goodbye dear

I fear the monkey in your soul

This is sung from the point of view of a guy who's girlfriend (or best friend, maybe) is under the control of a chemical addiction. In Alcoholics Anonymous, alcoholism is referred to as a "Monkey on your back", because it's a big, ugly, heavy, and sometimes obvious problem that you have to carry around with you no matter where you go. In this case, the "Monkey" has such a tight grasp on the person that he feels that it is in her soul.