If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Comics Alliance)   Dilbert creator Scott Adams says that rape is a "natural male instinct"   (comicsalliance.com) divider line 382
    More: Sick, parting shot, bloodbath, instincts, dong, wankers, pseudonyms  
•       •       •

11469 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Jun 2011 at 2:52 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



382 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-06-17 03:34:49 AM

crab66: To deny that we come from beasts and still have some parts of those beasts in us is willful ignorance.


Gish21: Humans are animals. In many animal species males sometimes use force to copulate with unwilling females in order to spread their genes. Shocking.


Hey guys, know what seperates man from animals?
 
2011-06-17 03:35:22 AM
Holy farking hyperbole.

In paragraph two, he's giving examples of the behavior "powerful men" have been engaging in lately that has been news worthy.

In paragraph three, he's having a MUCH broader thought regarding the fact that men can engage in certain actions and be disparaged as a pervert, while the same behaviors from women wouldn't garner a second thought, if they aren't outright praised.

I think the guy is a major douche, and I don't even agree with him in this case, but painting him as a rape apologist is a massive stretch here.
 
2011-06-17 03:35:36 AM

Gish21: like ducks with their corkscrew vaginas (new window) and fake cavities to trap rape sperm.


That really didn't require a link.
 
2011-06-17 03:35:52 AM

starsrift: Hey guys, know what seperates man from animals?



Not as much as you would like to believe.
 
2011-06-17 03:36:28 AM

starsrift: Hey guys, know what seperates man from animals?


abortion.
 
2011-06-17 03:37:59 AM

SJKebab: I really don't see the problem here. Jayelectricity nailed it: He's right, but we're a civilized species and we don't act on our natures without consent.

If you guys are really that offended about being equated to rapists, then lets change the argument a little bit.

Dilbert creator Scott Adams says that rape murder is a "natural male instinct".

Do we, as a civilised society allow it? Hell no*. In a world 200,000 years ago before the advent of philosophy, religion etc, killing your rivals gave you the best chance keep resources for yourself - territory and women are included in those resources. That instinct to kill will eventually lead to something else - the instinct to appear completely batshiat insane as a defence mechanism.

There's nothing particularly controversial in what I've just said here. Go back into the not very distant past and you'll find that murder was common place over small grievances. Why is it so hard to admit that rape might also be in that lizard part of the brain?

If you think that I'm trying to be a rape/murder apologist, then pull your head out of your arse. We live in a society, and society has its rules. You deal with that or you get kicked out of the society (jail). I'm just not seeing what you're all getting so amped up about.

*except with government permission


But he does seem to be arguing that society puts men at an unfair advantage (the whole square pegs in round holes bit). FTA:

The part that interests me is that society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable. In other words, men are born as round pegs in a society full of square holes. Whose fault is that? Do you blame the baby who didn't ask to be born male? Or do you blame the society that brought him into the world, all round-pegged and turgid, and said, "Here's your square hole"?

I have a couple of problems with this. First, it seems as if he's saying that men are the unwitting victims, and it would be better for men if they could act on the instincts we think of as shameful or criminal. Second, does he really think society has been set up to traditionally make women happy? There have been laws against rape and murder for a very long time. True, it used to be that a man couldn't be charged with raping his wife because we didn't recognize as husband's forcing his wife to have sex against her will as rape. But we always recognized it when he raped another guy's wife (unless the guy was really poor and the rapist was rich and powerful).
 
2011-06-17 03:38:07 AM

starsrift: crab66: To deny that we come from beasts and still have some parts of those beasts in us is willful ignorance.

Gish21: Humans are animals. In many animal species males sometimes use force to copulate with unwilling females in order to spread their genes. Shocking.

Hey guys, know what seperates man from animals?


Table manners?
 
2011-06-17 03:38:25 AM
Start here (new window)

Continue here (new window)

Scott Adams is the saddest farking tool in the shed. He's the chainsaw of depression.
 
2011-06-17 03:38:38 AM

starsrift: Hey guys, know what seperates man from animals?


Digital watches
 
2011-06-17 03:39:50 AM

Schlock: This piece was designed for regular readers of the Scott Adams blog


So it's not designed for intelligent people then. No one is more stupid than a dumb guy who THINKS he is smart. Those are the sort of people who join MENSA because it helps them validate their own dumbass thoughts, like they are special or something.
 
2011-06-17 03:41:34 AM

SJKebab: I really don't see the problem here. Jayelectricity nailed it: He's right, but we're a civilized species and we don't act on our natures without consent.

If you guys are really that offended about being equated to rapists, then lets change the argument a little bit.

Dilbert creator Scott Adams says that rape murder is a "natural male instinct".

Do we, as a civilised society allow it? Hell no*. In a world 200,000 years ago before the advent of philosophy, religion etc, killing your rivals gave you the best chance keep resources for yourself - territory and women are included in those resources. That instinct to kill will eventually lead to something else - the instinct to appear completely batshiat insane as a defence mechanism.

There's nothing particularly controversial in what I've just said here. Go back into the not very distant past and you'll find that murder was common place over small grievances. Why is it so hard to admit that rape might also be in that lizard part of the brain?

If you think that I'm trying to be a rape/murder apologist, then pull your head out of your arse. We live in a society, and society has its rules. You deal with that or you get kicked out of the society (jail). I'm just not seeing what you're all getting so amped up about.

*except with government permission


I've read about the possibility that rape is a useful reproductive strategy. It's a dangerous strategy and for animals with a higher brain, a morally repugnant act, but it is a reproductive strategy nonetheless.

Regarding the content of the article, humans are not purely instinctual creatures so affixing blame to some vaguely understood concept of instinct is a pathetic scapegoat to absolve people of responsibility. We have reasoning, forethought and empathy. We understand right, wrong and how to act accordingly.

Blaming society for being in conflict with male instinct is a strange thing to say considering how male dominated society has been for most of (western) history. We figured out a long time ago that condoning rape and murder is a BAD thing for society even if (and that's a big if) they are natural male instincts.
 
2011-06-17 03:41:42 AM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: starsrift: Hey guys, know what seperates man from animals?

Digital watches


I'm pretty sure I've seen lolcats with digital watches. The revolution has begun, our days are numbered.
 
2011-06-17 03:43:45 AM

PaulieVegas: I think the guy is a major douche, and I don't even agree with him in this case, but painting him as a rape apologist is a massive stretch here.


That's my take on the whole thing too.
 
2011-06-17 03:44:28 AM

Schlock: The All-Powerful Atheismo: starsrift: Hey guys, know what seperates man from animals?

Digital watches

I'm pretty sure I've seen lolcats with digital watches. The revolution has begun, our days are numbered.


The Japanese predicted this years ago

www.blogcdn.com
 
2011-06-17 03:44:45 AM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: starsrift: Hey guys, know what seperates man from animals?

Digital watches


Gravy.
 
2011-06-17 03:44:55 AM
Way to ignore the seriousness of rape upon women and even comparing to men as animals, you farking prick.

This is the reason I really hate the "It's the victim's fault for the way she dressed" argument. We never say "It's the guy's fault he got robbed cause he dressed like a rich person", they attack the victim and never the criminal and they give an implication than men can't control themselves and are basically animals when seeing a woman in a short skirt. It's degrading to both genders but especially women.
 
2011-06-17 03:45:18 AM

crab66: I find the general poo-flinging and emotional rather than logical responses to what he said to be more offensive than what he actually said.

Even if I don't agree that it in any way excuses ones behavior. To deny that we come from beasts and still have some parts of those beasts in us is willful ignorance.

And to say that women are not shamed for their own instincts is a complete fallacy. The desire for security and resources(money) is often looked at as a negative trait.

There is just as much negativity towards women as there is towards men. I would be more outraged about that part of his comments than the 'men behaving badly' crap. The more we can recognize and talk about this stuff openly, the more we can deal with it.


you should know better than to attempt to bring any form of rationality into this discussion.
/ill subscribe to this newsletter
 
2011-06-17 03:46:05 AM

Baryogenesis: Regarding the content of the article, humans are not purely instinctual creatures so affixing blame to some vaguely understood concept of instinct is a pathetic scapegoat to absolve people of responsibility. We have reasoning, forethought and empathy. We understand right, wrong and how to act accordingly.


Exactly. The logical conclusion of the path he wants us to consider is complete hedonism where everyone just takes what they want when they want it, because our instincts compel us to, and society can't function like that.
 
2011-06-17 03:53:10 AM

WizardofToast: We never say "It's the guy's fault he got robbed cause he dressed like a rich person", they attack the victim and never the criminal and they give an implication than men can't control themselves and are basically animals when seeing a woman in a short skirt


Just remember the faces of the men who make that argument. And never let them near your daughters or nieces.

But I think they HONESTLY believe their sick urges are normal. And in a less-evolved society, maybe they were. But trust me, you wanna-be rapist horndogs (and you know who you are), it's NOT normal. Don't drag me down into your sick perverted ways.
 
2011-06-17 03:58:48 AM
Confabulat:

i78.photobucket.com
 
2011-06-17 04:02:11 AM

Schlock: Baryogenesis: Regarding the content of the article, humans are not purely instinctual creatures so affixing blame to some vaguely understood concept of instinct is a pathetic scapegoat to absolve people of responsibility. We have reasoning, forethought and empathy. We understand right, wrong and how to act accordingly.

Exactly. The logical conclusion of the path he wants us to consider is complete hedonism where everyone just takes what they want when they want it, because our instincts compel us to, and society can't function like that.


Actually if you read the rest of his blog, the path he wants us to consider is the chemical castration of all males to remove sex drive, chemicals to create pair bonds between male and females, and the elimination of copulation and the use of artificial insemination to perpetuate the species.
 
2011-06-17 04:02:29 AM

Confabulat: WizardofToast: We never say "It's the guy's fault he got robbed cause he dressed like a rich person", they attack the victim and never the criminal and they give an implication than men can't control themselves and are basically animals when seeing a woman in a short skirt

Just remember the faces of the men who make that argument. And never let them near your daughters or nieces.

But I think they HONESTLY believe their sick urges are normal. And in a less-evolved society, maybe they were. But trust me, you wanna-be rapist horndogs (and you know who you are), it's NOT normal. Don't drag me down into your sick perverted ways.


You're trying awfully hard to paint yourself as a non-rapist....sounds like something a rapist was say. Rapist.
 
2011-06-17 04:05:58 AM

Gish21: Actually if you read the rest of his blog, the path he wants us to consider is the chemical castration of all males to remove sex drive, chemicals to create pair bonds between male and females, and the elimination of copulation and the use of artificial insemination to perpetuate the species.


Really? wow! scott adams is a certified genius!
 
2011-06-17 04:09:52 AM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Confabulat:


I get paid to do this. You go to sleep.
 
2011-06-17 04:12:22 AM
Wait I get paid to sleep too
 
2011-06-17 04:13:12 AM
You people aren't very adept in using context clues to determine actual meaning. Actually, nah, who the hell told this guy his opinion was wanted? That's the problem with America. Give a person an internet connection, a mouse, and a keyboard, and they think the entire world is just dying to read what they think. Kind of like I'm doing right now by responding to this.. wait.. meh, I'm not spewing crazy over a blog so frak it. Didn't this guy unleash crazy of a different kind here recently?
 
2011-06-17 04:16:53 AM
I would say that it's as natural as war. The newer parts of the brain are opposed to it, but we're not exactly a finished product evolution-wise.
 
2011-06-17 04:17:47 AM
Anecdotal evidence:
Have I been in a situation where a I could have sexually assaulted a woman? yes
Did I do it? No
Did it come to my mind to do it? No

So maybe it is just you Scott.
 
2011-06-17 04:19:12 AM
I'm going to go on a limb here and suggest that, as usual, people take his quotes out of context.
 
2011-06-17 04:20:14 AM
Really? Because iirc a lot of the great apes (what we are) are generally monogamous and only really violent with rivals. And primitive societies seem to follow the same general trends, we don't really start killing people of our own tribe and raping things and so on until we hit a fairly high level of civilization, freeing us from our normal instincts.

I mean, I guess Bonobos are pretty promiscuous but I think they're kind of the exception in our sub-order (or whatever it is this week, I lose track of taxonomy). So sort of a "citation needed" on this one, I think.

Basically, I'm saying I think Adams is failing on a scientific basis as much as a logical/moral one here.
 
2011-06-17 04:24:54 AM

Confabulat: You people who can see his point, you are not right, you know.


You people who CAN'T see his point (in this and other "controversial" bloggings) must be too stupid to walk and chew gum simultaneously.

Sure, he likes to throw out some teaser quotes, but his substantive points are usually both subtle and ultimately non-controversial. Too subtle, apparently, as the morans of the world keep thinking that he is controversial.
 
2011-06-17 04:25:13 AM

SJKebab: There's nothing particularly controversial in what I've just said here. Go back into the not very distant past and you'll find that murder was common place over small grievances.


Hell, Mark Twain saw a half dozen murders as a wee lad. Most probably what would make national news for weeks today but were only the talk of the town back then because three miles away something similar happened last week.

One I particularly like was the drunken California man accosting the old widow and her daughter. The widow put a musket full of slugs into his chest after a ten count, which more or less went SPLORCH.

As for rape being a natural instinct, it is. Don't believe me? Look at history. Good luck finding an epoch without it.
 
2011-06-17 04:25:55 AM
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=secrets-of-the-phallus (new window)

If one were to examine the penis objectively-please don't do this in a public place or without the other person's permission-and compare the shape of this organ to the same organ in other species, they'd notice the following uniquely human characteristics. First, despite variation in size between individuals, the erect human penis is especially large compared to that of other primates, measuring on average between five and six inches in length and averaging about five inches in circumference. (Often in this column I'll relate the science at hand to my own experiences, but perhaps this particular piece is best written without my normally generous use of anecdotes.) Even the most well-endowed chimpanzee, the species that is our closest living relative, doesn't come anywhere near this. Rather, even after correcting for overall mass and body size, their penises are about half the size of human penises in both length and circumference. I'm afraid that I'm a more reliable source on this than most. Having spent the first five years of my academic life studying great ape social cognition, I've seen more simian penises than I care to mention. I once spent a summer with a 450-pound silverback gorilla that was hung like a wasp (great guy, though) and baby-sat a lascivious young orangutan that liked to insert his penis in just about anything with a hole, which unfortunately one day included my ear.

In addition, only our species has such a distinctive mushroom-capped glans, which is connected to the shaft by a thin tissue of frenulum (the delicate tab of skin just beneath the urethra). Chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans have a much less extravagant phallic design, more or less all shaft. It turns out that one of the most significant features of the human penis isn't so much the glans per se, but rather the coronal ridge it forms underneath. The diameter of the glans where it meets the shaft is wider than the shaft itself. This results in the coronal ridge that runs around the circumference of the shaft-something Gallup, by using the logic of reverse-engineering, believed might be an important evolutionary clue to the origins of the strange sight of the human penis.

Now, the irony doesn't escape me. But in spite of the fact that this particular evolutionary psychologist (yours truly) is gay, for the purposes of research we must consider the evolution of the human penis in relation to the human vagina. Magnetic imaging studies of heterosexual couples having sex reveal that, during coitus, the typical penis completely expands and occupies the vaginal tract, and with full penetration can even reach the woman's cervix and lift her uterus. This combined with the fact that human ejaculate is expelled with great force and considerable distance (up to two feet if not contained), suggests that men are designed to release sperm into the uppermost portion of the vagina possible. Thus, in a theoretical paper published in the journal Evolutionary Psychology in 2004, Gallup and coauthor, Rebecca Burch, conjecture that, "A longer penis would not only have been an advantage for leaving semen in a less accessible part of the vagina, but by filling and expanding the vagina it also would aid and abet the displacement of semen left by other males as a means of maximizing the likelihood of paternity."

This "semen displacement theory" is the most intriguing part of Gallup's story. We may prefer to regard our species as being blissfully monogamous, but the truth is that, historically, at least some degree of fooling around has been our modus operandi for at least as long we've been on two legs. Since sperm cells can survive in a woman's cervical mucus for up to several days, this means that if she has more than one male sexual partner over this period of time, say within 48 hours, then the sperm of these two men are competing for reproductive access to her ovum. According to Gallup and Burch, "examples include, group sex, gang rape, promiscuity, prostitution, and resident male insistence on sex in response to suspected infidelity." The authors also cite the well-documented cases of human heteroparity, where "fraternal twins" are in fact sired by two different fathers who had sex with the mother within close succession to each other, as evidence of such sexual inclinations.

So how did natural selection equip men to solve the adaptive problem of other men impregnating their sexual partners? The answer, according to Gallup, is their penises were sculpted in such a way that the organ would effectively displace the semen of competitors from their partner's vagina, a well-synchronized effect facilitated by the "upsuck" of thrusting during intercourse. Specifically, the coronal ridge offers a special removal service by expunging foreign sperm. According to this analysis, the effect of thrusting would be to draw other men's sperm away from the cervix and back around the glans, thus "scooping out" the semen deposited by a sexual rival.

You might think that's fine and dandy, but one couldn't possibly prove such a thing. But you'd be underestimating Gallup, who in addition to being a brilliant evolutionary theorist, happens also to be a very talented experimental researcher (among other things, he's also well-known for developing the famous mirror self-recognition test for use with chimpanzees back in the early 1970s). In a series of studies published in a 2003 issue of the journal Evolution & Human Behavior, Gallup and a team of his students put the "semen displacement hypothesis" to the test using artificial genitalia of different shapes and sizes. They even concocted several batches of realistic seminal fluid. Findings from the study may not have "proved" the semen displacement hypothesis, but it certainly confirmed its principal points and made a believer out of most readers.

Here's how the basic study design worked. (And perhaps I ought to preempt the usual refrain by pointing out firstly that, yes, Gallup and his co-authors did receive full ethical approval from their university to conduct this study.) The researchers selected several sets of prosthetic genitals from erotic novelty stores, including a realistic latex vagina sold as a masturbation pal for lonely straight men and tied off at one end to prevent leakage, and three artificial phalluses. The first latex phallus was 6.1 inches long and 1.3 inches in diameter with a coronal ridge extending approximately 0.20 inch from the shaft. The second phallus was the same length, but its coronal ridge extended only 0.12 inch from the shaft. Finally, the third phallus matched the other two in length, but lacked a coronal ridge entirely. In other words, whereas the first two phalluses closely resembled an actual human penis, varying only in the coronal ridge properties, the third (the control phallus) was the bland and headless horseman of the bunch.


Next, the authors borrowed a recipe for simulated semen from another evolutionary psychologist, Todd Shackleford from Florida Atlantic University, and created several batches of seminal fluid. The recipe "consisted of 0.08 cups of sifted, white, unbleached flour mixed with 1.06 cups of water. This mixture was brought to a boil, simmered for 15 minutes while being stirred, and allowed to cool." In a controlled series of "displacement trials," the vagina was then loaded with semen, the phalluses were inserted at varying depths (to simulate thrusting) and removed, whereupon the latex orifice was examined to determine how much semen had been displaced from it. As predicted, the two phalluses with the coronal ridges displaced significantly more semen from the vagina (each removed 91 percent) than the "headless" control (35.3 percent). Additionally, the further that the phalluses were inserted-that is to say, the deeper the thrust-the more semen was displaced. When the phallus with the more impressive coronal ridge was inserted three fourths of the way into the vagina, it removed only a third of the semen, whereas it removed nearly all of the semen when inserted completely. Shallow thrusting, simulated by the researchers inserting the artificial phallus halfway or less into the artificial vagina, failed to displace any semen at all. So if you want advice that'll give you a leg up in the evolutionary arms race, don't go West, young man-go deep.

In the second part of their study published in Evolution & Human Behavior, Gallup administered a series of survey questions to college-age students about their sexual history. These questions were meant to determine whether penile behavior (my term, not theirs) could be predicted based on the men's suspicion of infidelity in their partners. In the first of these anonymous questionnaires, both men and women reported that, in the wake of allegations of female cheating, men thrust deeper and faster. Results from a second questionnaire revealed that, upon first being sexually reunited after time apart, couples engaged in more vigorous sex-namely, compared to baseline sexual activity where couples see other more regularly, vaginal intercourse following periods of separation involve deeper and quicker thrusting. Hopefully you're thinking as an evolutionary psychologist at this point and can infer what these survey data mean: by using their penises proficiently as a semen displacement device, men are subconsciously (in some cases consciously) combating the possibility that their partners have had sex with another man in their absence. The really beautiful thing about evolutionary psychology is that you don't have to believe it's true for it to work precisely this way. Natural selection doesn't much mind if you favor an alternative explanation for why you get so randy upon being reunited with your partner. Your penis will go about its business of displacing sperm regardless.

There are many other related hypotheses that can be derived from the semen displacement theory. In their 2004 Evolutionary Psychology piece, for example, Gallup and Burch expound on a number of fascinating spin-off ideas. For example, one obvious criticism of the semen displacement theory is that men would essentially disadvantage their own reproductive success by removing their own sperm cells from their sexual partner. However, in your own sex life, you've probably noticed the "refractory period" immediately following ejaculation, during which males almost instantly lose their tumescence (the erection deflates to half its full size within 1 min of ejaculating), their penises become rather hypersensitive and further thrusting even turns somewhat unpleasant. In fact, for anywhere between 30 minutes to 24 hours, men are rendered temporarily impotent following ejaculation. According to Gallup and Burch, these post-ejaculatory features, in addition to the common "sedation" effect of orgasm, may be adaptations to the problem of "self-semen displacement."

Gallup and Burch also leave us with a very intriguing hypothetical question. "Is it possible (short of artificial insemination)," they ask, "for a woman to become pregnant by a man she never had sex with? We think the answer is 'yes.'" It's a tricky run to wrap your head around, but basically Gallup and Birch say that semen displacement theory predicts that this is possible in the following way. I've taken the liberty of editing this for clarity. Also note that the scenario is especially relevant to uncircumcised men.

If "Josh" were to have sex with "Kate" who recently had sex with "Mike," in the process of thrusting his penis back and forth in her vagina, some of Mike's semen would be forced under Josh's frenulum, collect behind his coronal ridge, and displaced from the area proximate to the cervix. After Josh ejaculates and substitutes his semen for that of the other male, as he withdraws from the vagina some of Mike's semen will still be present on the shaft of his penis and behind his coronal ridge. As his erection subsides the glans will withdraw under the foreskin, raising the possibility that some of Mike's semen could be captured underneath the foreskin and behind the coronal ridge in the process. Were Josh to then have sex with "Amy" several hours later, it is possible that some of the displaced semen from Mike would still be present under his foreskin and thus may be unwittingly transmitted to Amy who, in turn, could then be impregnated by Mike's sperm.


It's not exactly an immaculate conception. But just imagine the look on Maury Povich's face.
 
2011-06-17 04:25:57 AM


Hey guys, know what seperates man from animals?


Weaselling out of things.

Excepting the weasel of course.
 
2011-06-17 04:29:19 AM

DeaH: But he does seem to be arguing that society puts men at an unfair advantage (the whole square pegs in round holes bit). FTA:

The part that interests me is that society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable. In other words, men are born as round pegs in a society full of square holes. Whose fault is that? Do you blame the baby who didn't ask to be born male? Or do you blame the society that brought him into the world, all round-pegged and turgid, and said, "Here's your square hole"?



The part that he forgets there is that for the main part, Men were the ones who designed society. It was in the interests of a greater number of men to adopt rules and regulations regarding dealings with other men. So his whole square peg round hole analogy is flawed from the start. However, this is what he does.
I'm not a big reader of his blog by any means, but what I've gathered is that he basically trolls out an argument, and allows the readers to flesh it out in more detail (or something like that). Yeah I'm aware of his previous douchebag antics, but I couldn't give half a shiat about that.

Baryogenesis: Regarding the content of the article, humans are not purely instinctual creatures so affixing blame to some vaguely understood concept of instinct is a pathetic scapegoat to absolve people of responsibility. We have reasoning, forethought and empathy. We understand right, wrong and how to act accordingly.


DING DING DING DING.
 
2011-06-17 04:29:35 AM

Jim_Callahan: Basically, I'm saying I think Adams is failing on a scientific basis as much as a logical/moral one here.


If Scott Adams is the socially-inept nerd loser that his strip indicates, he may very well believe he is correct.

Let's look at comic books.

Superman could rape and kill any woman he wanted to without consequences. Yet this action would never occur to Superman, because Superman does not have a psyche filled with nerdy insecurity, an oversized belief in his own intellectual superiority, and wild rage against all the perceived slights that the world has given him. Superman is a good guy.

Clark Kent is Superman's parody of human beings. So is Scott Adams.

Scott Adams is not Superman.
 
2011-06-17 04:29:59 AM

Rambino: Too subtle, apparently, as the morans of the world keep thinking that he is controversial.


The point isn't too subtle, we've just gotten used to "talking points". Wow, look at that horrid new-found instinct of ours.

Statistics are cold and cruel, but real nontheless. People do not like being shown what human being actually are, animals with a deeper train of thought. People don't even like thinking of the possibility of hidden "evil".
 
2011-06-17 04:30:18 AM
No Dilbert, she said she wanted your stapler
 
2011-06-17 04:30:46 AM

starsrift: crab66: To deny that we come from beasts and still have some parts of those beasts in us is willful ignorance.

Gish21: Humans are animals. In many animal species males sometimes use force to copulate with unwilling females in order to spread their genes. Shocking.

Hey guys, know what seperates man from animals?


My guess is that you believe it's god.

The rest of us believe there is a spectrum involving nature and nurture and culture. But I don't know of anyone apart from religious zealots and you that believe nature has no role.

Somehow you, Confabulat, and others believe that since we have nurture and culture there is no longer any influence whatsoever from nature. Actual humans with actual experience with humanity, and parents in particular who have seen their boys and girls grow, know differently.

Anyway, enjoy your sky demon fantasy beliefs, I'm not judgmental that way. If it works for you, Falwell, Confabulat and so many feminists, best wishes.

Me, I know I'm a primate. This doesn't excuse behaviors, but at times it explains them.
 
2011-06-17 04:30:58 AM

Rambino: Confabulat: You people who can see his point, you are not right, you know.

You people who CAN'T see his point (in this and other "controversial" bloggings) must be too stupid to walk and chew gum simultaneously.

Sure, he likes to throw out some teaser quotes, but his substantive points are usually both subtle and ultimately non-controversial. Too subtle, apparently, as the morans of the world keep thinking that he is controversial.


It's not about stupidity. It's about basic human morality and decency. If you lack that, yes, I guess he makes a lot of sense to you. I have empathy; I'm sorry you were born without that.
 
2011-06-17 04:34:14 AM

Confabulat: If Scott Adams is the socially-inept nerd loser that his strip indicates, he may very well believe he is correct.

Let's look at comic books.

Superman could rape and kill any woman he wanted to without consequences. Yet this action would never occur to Superman, because Superman does not have a psyche filled with nerdy insecurity, an oversized belief in his own intellectual superiority, and wild rage against all the perceived slights that the world has given him. Superman is a good guy.

Clark Kent is Superman's parody of human beings. So is Scott Adams.

Scott Adams is not Superman.


whatever substance you're using tonight, could I have some?
 
2011-06-17 04:34:43 AM

RoyBatty: Somehow you, Confabulat, and others believe that since we have nurture and culture there is no longer any influence whatsoever from nature. Actual humans with actual experience with humanity, and parents in particular who have seen their boys and girls grow, know differently.

Anyway, enjoy your sky demon fantasy beliefs, I'm not judgmental that way. If it works for you, Falwell, Confabulat and so many feminists, best wishes.


Dude I stopped believing in God before I quit on Santa. At least that guy gave me stuff sometimes.

Oh sure I'm an animal. I'm a human animal. That comes with interesting things like morality and empathy and a general intellectual awareness of the state of my fellow human beings.

You're saying I shouldn't consider those to be part of my primate experience? That the only real animal is the one that wants a good rape?

Sorry bro, but you didn't evolve nearly as much as you should have if you can really believe that bullshiat.
 
2011-06-17 04:35:04 AM

Confabulat: It's not about stupidity. It's about basic human morality and decency. If you lack that, yes, I guess he makes a lot of sense to you. I have empathy; I'm sorry you were born without that.


It's like you're godwinning this thread. Lacking any facts, you stick to some pseudo religious intellectual moral high ground. But you have nothing to back it up with except your insults to others. I think I'll favorite you as #winning
 
2011-06-17 04:35:53 AM

log_jammin: whatever substance you're using tonight, could I have some?


Hey I'm at work. Vodka and weed just help me fill out the papers.
 
2011-06-17 04:36:14 AM

Confabulat: That the only real animal is the one that wants a good rape?

Sorry bro, but you didn't evolve nearly as much as you should have if you can really believe that bullshiat.


Right, I actually haven't said anything like that, have I?

Keep going d00d, you're #winning.
 
2011-06-17 04:37:56 AM
Oh fark, reminding me every day that most people go out of their way to feel outraged by someone/something
 
2011-06-17 04:38:56 AM
I had no idea Scott Adams was a muslim.
 
2011-06-17 04:40:55 AM
I would label douche's rape instinct a reproductive instinct; a tactic that can be used as a means to an end, but not a separate entity.
 
2011-06-17 04:42:53 AM

RoyBatty: If one were to examine the penis


tl;dr version

This gay scientist was ear raped by an orangutan one day. Also rape is natural.
 
2011-06-17 04:50:29 AM
ITT:

Good looking/rich guys: "That's terrible!!"
 
Displayed 50 of 382 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report