High Street at Cruelery.com - The Web's Bitter Afterbirth / The Hetrosexual Agenda:

opsec · 2008-07-22 19:45:19

phoQ wrote:
Bacteria live inside all of our cells while their genes slowly migrate into the human genome.

Bacteria as a rule do not exchange transgenic material. They are classified as species.

phoQ wrote:
Viruses, transposons, retrotransposons and other mobile genetic elements hop in and out of your DNA. The microbial world is driven by horizontal gene transfer.

They cannot be classified as species for this very reason.

phoQ wrote:
The microbial world is driven by horizontal gene transfer.

In this discussion, {url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial]microbial[/url] is an amusing term... both literally and technically it means "things I can't see". Once again I slap the black glove of the layman against the pink cheek of your .edu.

I will win that Cliff Claven award someday.

Johnny_Rotten · 2008-07-22 20:45:43

WilberCuntLicker wrote:
phoQ wrote:
Carl von Linne’s (his real name) 18th century artificial construct is fine in a Peterson Field Guide to Birds of North America sort of way. But the map is not the territory, and species just gets in the way in many situations.
True enough. Your original statement did seem metonymic and nonsensical, but about two hours after I posted my comment I realized what you were saying. And speaking of the Birds of North America, I spent half an hour sitting in the woods yesterday having a long and involved interaction with three large Barred Owls, sitting on branches less than 15 feet away. (At first I thought they were the very similar looking and extremely rare Spotted Owls...but no....) I've had staring and hooting and hissing contests with owls before, but never three-in-a-go.... I'm going back tomorrow with a photographically-inclined female....
https://cruelery.com/uploads/thumbs/242 … 714736.jpg

You should be able to liven up the interaction by offerring them some treats. Use the method my friends employ when they surveyed spotted owls. Take a wooden stick a bit shy of a meter and nail a small 10 cm platform to the end. Tack down a freshly killed or live mouse and hold above your head. The local owls will soon learn to recognize and follow you anytime you enter their territory.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Johnny_Rotten · 2008-07-22 21:08:23

opsec wrote:
Bacteria as a rule do not exchange transgenic material. They are classified as species.

I don't know about bacteria to human but the new science shows that between species of bacteria gene exchange is the rule not the exception.

phoQ wrote:
Viruses, transposons, retrotransposons and other mobile genetic elements hop in and out of your DNA. The microbial world is driven by horizontal gene transfer.

opsec wrote:
They cannot be classified as species for this very reason.

Virus and such can become the vehicle by which genes are transferred between species of bacteria.

opsec wrote:
I will win that Cliff Claven award someday.

Belly up and get in line.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-07-22 21:10:57)

phoQ · 2008-07-22 22:24:10

opsec wrote:
Bacteria as a rule do not exchange transgenic material.

Very false. They do it all the time. I have taken advantage of this to suit my own ends.

[Bacteria] are classified as species.

True, but realizing the futility of bacterial species level distinction, microbiologists use the further classifications of pathovars, serovars, or strains.

[Viruses, transposons, retrotransposons and other mobile genetic elements] cannot be classified as species.

This is partially true. Viruses are sometimes classified as species but mobile genetic elements are not. However, none of the aforementioned group is classified as living either, but they have a tremendous impact on the exchange of genetic material from one “species” to another as seen in figure 2 of my previous post and in Johnny_Rotten's example.

In this discussion, microbial is an amusing term... both literally and technically it means "things I can't see". Once again I slap the black glove of the layman against the pink cheek of your .edu.

While I enjoy your fetish imagery, you remind me that I am conversing with a purported layman. Yes, you cannot usually see microbes with the naked eye. So what? This doesn’t mean they aren’t the dominant life form on this planet. Humans could disappear tomorrow and microbes would hardly be affected. But if microbes disappeared, you would not last a minute.

The “Tree of Life” based on the sequence of one very slowly evolving gene. The distance of the lines relates to evolutionary distance but not time.

hits pati · 2008-07-23 12:46:52

pALEPHx wrote:
Emmeran wrote:
I'd rather just avoid the whole bio-social discussion and write it off as errors in manufacturing or an improper genetic response to a life drama.

I think we can all agree that the stat's on homo/bi behavior are skewed according to the speakers preference and that stats rarely tell the whole truth.

it's fairly safe to assume (among the males):

5% of the population are genetically fags
5% have had a faggish incident or period
20% will fuck anything (including traffic signs)
69% prefer pussy of one sort or another.
1% are Canadians

I've personally never managed a faggish incident or period, and probably never will now that Lurker has gone missing.
Well, you've already implied you're some kind of homophobe, so I wonder why I'm bothering, but wot teh hey...

Congrats on never faggin' out. Godsknow, if you'd ever so much as idolized a football player or looked up to an uncle, this male affiliation would have to end at intercourse.

You can't write off the biopsychosocial model. It's what predominates the field. If you're not IN the 'field,' then you can say whatever the fuck you want. I would agree with you, and Samuel Clemens, about statistics, but scientific study would be useless in all areas of endeavor if we didn't accept processed numbers. I would further agree that what they mean to one observer may be different to another, but "science" tries to level that distinction a lot more often than you might give credit. F'rinstance, saying "God had a fondness for beetles" is a statistical argument, and nobody could argue with the numbers. With other populations, and certainly with behavior, what George was discussing was an interpretation of the data, not a weird re-jiggering of the data themselves.

8-10% of the population are genetically predisposed to same-sex behavior.
12-25% beyond this group may have a same-sex experience.*
13-15% of this group are functionally bisexual, whether they exercise this option or not.**
The rest must have the vajayjay or their world will collapse.

* This experience does not infringe on gender identity, orientation, or life-term behaviors.
** Sexuality does not reside in mere practice or demonstration.

We live in a world that socializes people to be straight. I don't have a problem with this; it's an obvious biological necessity. Fags that DO have a problem with it are of the kind who think that everybody's gay, just with the right person or the right amount of alcohol, and they're not entirely off the mark, despite their frivolousness. More people would seek, desire, and be satisfied by same-sex behaviors if there was less of a social stigma associated with it, but not even the Ancient Greeks found the practice--as a life-long activity--acceptable. The term "homosexual" didn't even exist a hundred and fifty years ago, yet the behaviors obviously did.

There. I have used up my additional 8 yawns and Wilber can have control of your Saturday evening. Hope you're happy with such a staunch supporter of heterosexuality. His desire to have his mind masturbated by other men of equal or greater intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with his genitals.

So if I understand your stats, you said 12-25% may have had a same sex experience and 13% of that portion are bisexual?

So you estimate 1-3% of the overall population are bisexual?

That seems like a low-ball figure to me.

pALEPHx · 2008-07-23 13:21:39

hits pati wrote:
So if I understand your stats, you said 12-25% may have had a same sex experience and 13% of that portion are bisexual?

So you estimate 1-3% of the overall population are bisexual?

That seems like a low-ball figure to me.

I would have figured the final remark about "vajayjay" suggested itself to semi-fatuous figures, but without wanting to get into this much deeper, the aggregate data for men and women suggest 10-13% gay/lesbian. Actual figures for bisexuality are far more difficult to tease out because of the broad variation of behaviors over the course of a lifetime...not to mention the differences in reporting from country to country and culture to culture. As readily as the argument could be made that "everyone is, to some extent (including no physical activity) bisexual," it could also be said (by less scholarly types) that no one is bi, they're just gay and covering.

I did, however, entirely mean the starred footnotes about gender, sexual identity, etc. These bonus yawns have been brought to you by the letters W, C, and L.