Poor little Alzael,
You wasted 20 minutes of your fucking life just to prove me wrong. How sad! I feel for you. Just goes to prove how frustration has gotten the better of you. Sadder still is the fact that I don't give a shit to whatever you wrote.
No, I spent 20 minutes evaluating the data that you put out to be examined as proof of your claim to see if what you were proposing had any merit that was worthy of consideration. That's what a rational person does. That's what I always do, in case you hadn't noticed. When qwan lee (or whatever his name is) posted that BS story about a mans near death experience, even though it was pretty obviously going to be tripe, I still read it and examined it. This allowed me to make an
informed decision about it's worth as an argument for qwan's point.
I'm curious as to what you expected I would do? Did you think I would just take your word for it and accept that your information was good just because you put out a link?
As for it being sad that you don't care what I wrote, I assume you mean sad for me, but I don't see how. How is it sad for me that you don't care that someone has shown your source of information to be faulty?
Instead of just wasting your time trying to prove a certain anthropologist or primatologist wrong, would it have killed someone to just type the name Bonobo over the net?
No, it wouldn't have killed me. But would it have killed you to provide a credible source of information the first time around. Instead of providing information written in a
romance novel? Note that I never claimed your information was wrong. I said that your source was worthless. As I said, the Dr. is as far as I can see a legitimate scientist, and a very well accomplished one in her field. I've had a chance since to look at some of her work and I personally find it impressive. I've always enjoyed sociology and other anthropological sciences so I can appreciate what she's done.
However she has no experience in this particular field, and as pointed out, has made no claims that any of those things on that site are true which you were using as proof. Those statements about bonobos are all excerpts from a
fictional novel that she has written about a woman who studies/has studied bonobos. It is not a credible source of information about them, nor does she at any point claim it to be. In fact, as I pointed out, there is a section at the bottom of that page where another scientist has sent a letter to her correcting her information. Dr. Waldon, being a respectable scientist, reproduced the letter at the bottom in full with the mans name so that the correction was clear and was accredited to the scientist that had provided the information.
But my sidetracking aside, if you had other sources to offer, why provide one that is from a fictional work? Did you not read what you were using as evidence, because it's spelled out quite clearly what that information is?
Or at the least ask me for some other links?
Again, why should I have to? Why didn't you just post a good link in the first place?
I guess it would have killed you for, whoa, wait a theist is creating this post, lets just prove him wrong by whatever means!
I didn't prove you wrong. I proved that your source of information was faulty, there's a difference. As for the second part, please grow up and don't try to play the persecution card. You put out a claim and evidence of that claim, and I evaluated it fairly. That's it. I've barely interacted with you throughout your entire stay on this forum. This is only the second thread that I can recall in which I've ever spoken to you, so the fact that I'm pouncing on you just because you're a theist as opposed to someone who was making bad claims is ridiculous.
Anyways, here are some other links saying almost same things what Dr. Waldron said
http://www.livescience.com/9882-humans-lot-learn-bonobos-scientist.html
Firstly I'll reiterate that I never stated disagreement with much of the information presented. Merely it's use as a source.
That being said, this link does not say almost the same things that were on Dr.Waldrons website. It makes the same general conclusion about bonobos being exceptionally geared towards being peaceable and cooperative but does not say most of the same things that the Dr.'s did. Doctor Waldron's was mostly just various examples and statements about their sexual behaviour (the woman in her novel is apparently studying sexual evolution) this is mostly a essay on bonobo research in general. As far as it goes it does somewhat help your claim. However it only spends a single short paragraph on the topic and the rest is unrelated to what you are trying to claim. So it provides some validation, but no hard evidence. However it wasn't trying to in the first place.
Interestingly, one thing that the researcher in that article theorizes is that the reason that bonobo society is so peaceful is because in the areas where bonobos live there is an overabundance of food. Meaning that bonobo tribes never have to compete for resources.
From this article I would seem to conclude more that bonobos are not as "ideal" as they are because they are governed by females, but because there is simply no need for violence. The females will have sex anywhere, anytime, in any sexual configuration the males want. As well as every member of their society has as overabundance of "weath". Since they have no gods either, what is there to fight about?
As an aside, I noticed another article on bonobos while I was reading this one.
http://www.livescience.com/9601-bonobos-hunt-primates.htmlThe upshot of the whole thing is that bonobos have been observered hunting down, killing, and eating the young of other species of primates. For those who don't want to read it I'll provide the most relevant quote:
""These findings are particularly relevant for the discussion about male dominance and bonding, aggression and hunting — a domain that was thought to separate chimpanzees and bonobos," said Gottfried Hohmann of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. "In chimpanzees, male-dominance is associated with physical violence, hunting and meat consumption. By inference, the lack of male dominance and physical violence is often used to explain the relative absence of hunting and meat-eating in bonobos. Our observations suggest that, in contrast to previous assumptions, these behaviors may persist in societies with different social relations." "So we have further evidence here of my theory that female dominance has little, or possibly no, correlation to the lack of violence in bonobos as this hunting and killing behavior is demonstrated in the females as well.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/weird-wide-web/study-female-bonobos-homosexual-relations
Ummmmm........did you actually read this? Because I really don't think you did. Not only does this in no way provide any support for your position. It actually outright confirms what I stated earlier about your "ideal society" being one where all the women are sluts and whores.
For those members who aren't going to read this (and I wouldn't blame any of you for not wanting to read about bonobo lesbianism). The article is about how bonobo females use sex (specifically homosexual sex) to advance their position in bonobo society. During sex bonobo females make certain noises to entice the higher-ranking females to want to have sex with them as an invitation. Thus strengthening their own position in the tribe. I'm curious, Orpat did claim to be a feminist, didn't he?
I will now take a moment and allow the image of
lesbian ape orgies to seep into your brains. Because if I have to suffer this, I'm taking all of you bastards with me.
http://brembs.net/bonobos.html
Ok, seriously dude. What is it with you and the monkey-sex? I mean really. It was bad enough that you linked a site that talked solely about lesbian monkey sex. Now you had to link me to a site that actually
explained the process to me? Do I really strike you as someone that was sitting around wondering about how gay and lesbian monkeys got their rocks off together (yeah male bonobos are in there too).
The joking and disturbing imagery aside however, let me just say this. The article is very good and well-written with a great deal of information about bonobos and their society. For those interested I recommend reading it (just trust me, skip paragraphs 22-26).
However like the first one it doesn't really help Orpats case. Most of what is said in this article does not match up with what was said in his initial link, except in the most general way (bonobos are peaceful and they fuck a lot). Almost none of the specific claims made in that first post are mentioned anywhere.
What I do get from this is more along the lines of my earlier statements about the way the females control the males. Yes, the society is female-dominated, however the society is dominated by the females because the females essentially work together to literaly dominate the men. The females work as a group and intimidate any male that gets uppity into submission, just as a group of males would do with a female in any other society. Aside from intimidation the females control the society using sex as a tool to make the men do things, give them food and other gifts, advance their position, and generally give in to their wishes. Again,
just like in any other society. While reading the articles was very interesting and informative (as well as mentally scarring) nothing in them supports Orpats case that bonobo society is so peaceful and idyllic (as he describes it) because it is female dominated. The evidence that I can see points to the reason being that bonobo society simply has nothing to really fight for. It does certainly sound very wonderful (all of your basic needs easily met and sex whenever you want) but I can't see where the females really have anything to do with it (except maybe the sex part).
Now, if you'll all excuse me for a bit. I've just spent far too much with images of multi-partnered ape sex invading my brain.
I need to go plunge my skull into anti-matter.
