Notices
Results 1 to 63 of 63

Thread: how come Receiving oral sex is more dangerous to man than performing ?

  1. #1 how come Receiving oral sex is more dangerous to man than performing ? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    9
    Sexually transmitted disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I check this article and it show that by receiving oral sex man can get the following diseases :


    but when he is the one the preform it, then it is only the following:
    Performing oral sex on a woman

    is that mean that it is safer for a man to preform oral sex on woman than to receive oral sex?


    Last edited by programAngel; January 23rd, 2012 at 12:11 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    This is counter-intuitive, I agree, as the volume of body fluids exchanged is greater male to female than in the opposite direction. Some form of barrier is an obvious precaution for such encounters, as distasteful as this alternative may be- literally.

    The health you save may be your own and anything is preferable to celibacy as far as many are concerned.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Receiving oral sex means receiving saliva from your partner. However, the person giving the oral sex receives genital fluids into his/her mouth.

    Saliva is largely sterile. Even the AIDS virus is found in saliva in quantities too small to be infective. Genital fluids, on the other hand, may contain any or all the pathogens that cause STD's. Thus, giving oral sex may result in STD pathogens passing into the giver's mouth. Receiving saliva is mostly safe. (Which is why kissing normally does not pass on disease.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Don't forget about HPV, and the risk of HPV related oral cancer that is linked to oral sex:

    Oral Sex May Cause More Throat Cancer Than Smoking in Men, Researchers Say - Bloomberg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    127
    Male on male subject's to a frame outside of which I would want to talk about.My impression is when a man has the intentions of any actions oral,anal or whatever with another male. I would wish he would stop and buy a hotdog instead!I might be off subject here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Receiving oral sex means receiving saliva from your partner. However, the person giving the oral sex receives genital fluids into his/her mouth.

    Saliva is largely sterile. Even the AIDS virus is found in saliva in quantities too small to be infective. Genital fluids, on the other hand, may contain any or all the pathogens that cause STD's. Thus, giving oral sex may result in STD pathogens passing into the giver's mouth. Receiving saliva is mostly safe. (Which is why kissing normally does not pass on disease.)
    So is wikipedia wrong?

    It claim man has more danger in recieving oral sex from woman than performaing one?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by programAngel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Receiving oral sex means receiving saliva from your partner. However, the person giving the oral sex receives genital fluids into his/her mouth.

    Saliva is largely sterile. Even the AIDS virus is found in saliva in quantities too small to be infective. Genital fluids, on the other hand, may contain any or all the pathogens that cause STD's. Thus, giving oral sex may result in STD pathogens passing into the giver's mouth. Receiving saliva is mostly safe. (Which is why kissing normally does not pass on disease.)
    So is wikipedia wrong?

    It claim man has more danger in recieving oral sex from woman than performaing one?
    The vagina is an acidic environment, because of its features. This is so because if the vagina was neutral it would be at a greater risk against pathogens. In some ways it already is. Women are more likely to receive bladder infections than men, the entrance route for bladder infections usually being the vagina.

    With men however, the penis is not an acidic environment. I am sure they are at a minutely higher risk for STIs affecting the skin, and possibly for other infections via the urethra. I don't think it matters whether a woman or a man performs the oral sex. I'm sure the risks are entirely based on the anatomy of the recepting partner.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by stander-j View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by programAngel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Receiving oral sex means receiving saliva from your partner. However, the person giving the oral sex receives genital fluids into his/her mouth.

    Saliva is largely sterile. Even the AIDS virus is found in saliva in quantities too small to be infective. Genital fluids, on the other hand, may contain any or all the pathogens that cause STD's. Thus, giving oral sex may result in STD pathogens passing into the giver's mouth. Receiving saliva is mostly safe. (Which is why kissing normally does not pass on disease.)
    So is wikipedia wrong?

    It claim man has more danger in recieving oral sex from woman than performaing one?
    The vagina is an acidic environment, because of its features. This is so because if the vagina was neutral it would be at a greater risk against pathogens. In some ways it already is. Women are more likely to receive bladder infections than men, the entrance route for bladder infections usually being the vagina.

    With men however, the penis is not an acidic environment. I am sure they are at a minutely higher risk for STIs affecting the skin, and possibly for other infections via the urethra. I don't think it matters whether a woman or a man performs the oral sex. I'm sure the risks are entirely based on the anatomy of the recepting partner.
    Well I will focus my question.

    for the man is it more dangerous to preform oral sex on a woman or to receive oral sex from a woman?
    According to the article in wikipedia (that could be incorrect) form performing oral sex you can only get herps while receiving oral sex you can get a longer list of disease.

    I am talking about the man.

    Is this because the anatomy of the penis?

    That make it more dangrous to him than the mouth?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Receiving oral sex means receiving saliva from your partner. However, the person giving the oral sex receives genital fluids into his/her mouth.

    Saliva is largely sterile. Even the AIDS virus is found in saliva in quantities too small to be infective. Genital fluids, on the other hand, may contain any or all the pathogens that cause STD's. Thus, giving oral sex may result in STD pathogens passing into the giver's mouth. Receiving saliva is mostly safe. (Which is why kissing normally does not pass on disease.)
    if this is true then why it is more dangerous for man to receive oral sex than preform one?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To program angel

    The wiki article did not give clear quantitative risk levels comparing giving and receiving oral sex. My point stands. Genital fluids hold more STD pathogens than saliva. Hence, taking a genital fluid into the mouth is far riskier than accepting saliva from a partner. This is most especially true for AIDS, but is also true for gonorrhoea and syphilis.

    If it were otherwise, we would have major epidemics from kissing, which we do not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    To program angel

    The wiki article did not give clear quantitative risk levels comparing giving and receiving oral sex. My point stands. Genital fluids hold more STD pathogens than saliva. Hence, taking a genital fluid into the mouth is far riskier than accepting saliva from a partner. This is most especially true for AIDS, but is also true for gonorrhoea and syphilis.

    If it were otherwise, we would have major epidemics from kissing, which we do not.
    It doesn't give quantity but it mention only Herpes as a risk for a man preforming Cunnilingus and it mention Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Non-gonococcal, urethritis, Herpes, Syphilis as a risk to a man receiving Fellatio.


    so it seem man can get more disease from receiving Fellatio?
    Isn't it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    No. That is a false interpretation from the article.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by stander-j View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by programAngel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Receiving oral sex means receiving saliva from your partner. However, the person giving the oral sex receives genital fluids into his/her mouth.

    Saliva is largely sterile. Even the AIDS virus is found in saliva in quantities too small to be infective. Genital fluids, on the other hand, may contain any or all the pathogens that cause STD's. Thus, giving oral sex may result in STD pathogens passing into the giver's mouth. Receiving saliva is mostly safe. (Which is why kissing normally does not pass on disease.)

    It claim man has more danger in recieving oral sex from woman than performaing one?
    The vagina is an acidic environment, because of its features. This is so because if the vagina was neutral it would be at a greater risk against pathogens. In some ways it already is. Women are more likely to receive bladder infections than men, the entrance route for bladder infections usually being the vagina.

    With men however, the penis is not an acidic environment. I am sure they are at a minutely higher risk for STIs affecting the skin, and possibly for other infections via the urethra. I don't think it matters whether a woman or a man performs the oral sex. I'm sure the risks are entirely based on the anatomy of the recepting partner.

    Urethra is shorter in case of female for obvious reasons, therefore easier time for bacteria seeking access to bladder, but men can and do suffer from such infections. Both sexes may acquire this type of infection from improper catheterization.

    I knew a guy once who was paraplegic and always had to cath himself- everywhere in his apartment were plastic urinals with red catheters sticking out, half full of urine. I said, "(name), if you want to get chicks to come over, you need a new decorator."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Once Merrill's Marauders were on combat patrol in the WWII, searching for Japanese patrols. During a river crossing one poor guy got a leech in his urethra. Once leech was swollen with blood it was impossible to dislodge and totally blocked flow of urine. He was seriously going to amputate the penis, the agony was so great, but native people had dealt with this before and extracted the critter with bamboo tweezers.

    Way off topic, but wow, if this story made you squeamish you should be glad I do not bring up some of the STD treatments of yesteryear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    I would say it is more dangerous for the person who performs oral sex. However, the risk cannot be quantified. We just don't know what the risk is of oral cancer from HPV
    contracted from oral sex.

    However, with oral cancer you are not just risking an std. You are risking having major surgery on the head and neck that could require a tracheostomy, a feeding tube, and radiation.

    That will definitely effect your quality of life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    No. That is a false interpretation from the article.
    Ok,

    where am I wrong?

    Because it doesn't make sense to me either.


    As I understand it, when a preform oral sex on a woman, I can only get herpes, but if I receive oral sex from a woman, then I can get herpes and Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Non-gonococcal, urethritis, Syphilis.
    And I can not get Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Non-gonococcal, urethritis, Syphilis from preforming oral sex on a woman.

    Where am I wrong in my understanding of the article?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    I would say it is more dangerous for the person who performs oral sex. However, the risk cannot be quantified. We just don't know what the risk is of oral cancer from HPV
    contracted from oral sex.
    If I understand the article correctly then a man preforming oral sex on a woman can not get HPV.


    Where am I wrong?
    I am not a native English speaker but that is what I get from their list.

    I talk about the list "Odds of transmission per unprotected sexual act with an infected person".
    I don't see HPV in the Performing oral sex on a woman.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    A woman performing oral sex on a male who is free of herpes lesions or other signs that are not normal have very few risks of catching anything if they don't swallow the man's semen and don't release alot of pre - cum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by programAngel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo View Post
    I would say it is more dangerous for the person who performs oral sex. However, the risk cannot be quantified. We just don't know what the risk is of oral cancer from HPV
    contracted from oral sex.
    If I understand the article correctly then a man preforming oral sex on a woman can not get HPV.


    Where am I wrong?
    I am not a native English speaker but that is what I get from their list.

    I talk about the list "Odds of transmission per unprotected sexual act with an infected person".
    I don't see HPV in the Performing oral sex on a woman.
    That is not correct.

    A man who performs oral sex on a woman can get HPV and this places the man at risk of contracting oral cancer from the HPV.

    The risk goes up with frequency.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman Ged Mannix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    87
    Hello again Dwy, may I ask, a thread like this is left up to view but others are trashed, is there anything redeeming about this thread? Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post
    Hello again Dwy, may I ask, a thread like this is left up to view but others are trashed, is there anything redeeming about this thread? Thank you.
    Because it's a genuine question, susceptible to a science-based answer.
    It's that simple.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman Ged Mannix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    87
    I see. Do you wish you did define your reasoning?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post
    I see. Do you wish you did define your reasoning?
    Don't be an idiot. This is a science forum. So science questions are dealt with on it. If you read the thread, which is 5 years old by the way, you will see the answers supplied are scientifically based. Medical people deal with things like this, you know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman Quantumologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    76
    Aw come on, fess up Chewie, you just like it......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,436
    It had been left to rot for 5 years before you bumped it back up to the first page
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,436
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantumologist View Post
    Aw come on, fess up Chewie, you just like it......
    Why are you shit stirring?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post
    I see. Do you wish you did define your reasoning?
    What exactly in this thread is not science based, or is trolling, that would necessitate it being moved to trash?

    It was started with a valid question, and it was answered with valid science. So nothing would make it a candidate to be trashed other then an individual persons prudery.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    I think Ged Mannix is unable to distinguish between evidence-based rational thought and random crap that pops into his brain.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,436
    A sadly common failing...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman Ged Mannix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I think Ged Mannix is unable to distinguish between evidence-based rational thought and random crap that pops into his brain.

    Evidence-base rational thought. Any evidence, when conceptualised using rational thought is converted into a mode of reasoning based upon many profound and unexamined assumptions. You can have the best evidence, but as soon as you describe it you must use concepts that derive their origin in the assumptions of human thought. I am serious. I am not here to play.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman Ged Mannix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post
    I see. Do you wish you did define your reasoning?
    Don't be an idiot. This is a science forum. So science questions are dealt with on it. If you read the thread, which is 5 years old by the way, you will see the answers supplied are scientifically based. Medical people deal with things like this, you know.


    Sorry ex. I was simply trying to guess the what Dywyddyr stood for, in the context of my discussion with Dyw.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post
    I am serious. I am not here to play.
    Then stop ending every post with a smiley. It makes you look even more foolish than the text alone does.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman Ged Mannix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post
    I am serious. I am not here to play.
    Then stop ending every post with a smiley. It makes you look even more foolish than the text alone does.
    Well, if it looks foolish then hopefully what I'm actually saying/doing will put that straight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post


    Sorry ex. I was simply trying to guess the what Dywyddyr stood for, in the context of my discussion with Dyw.
    He's a crabby old sod but he is pretty sound on distinguishing genuine scientific topics of discussion from the various forms of bullshit, inanity and trolling that we get brought to us on this forum. Which is his job as moderator.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman Ged Mannix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    87
    Science is dependent upon human intelligence. Are you interested in both ex?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post
    Science is dependent upon human intelligence. Are you interested in both ex?
    No. Or, not if you insist on separating human intelligence from science. Human intelligence can be studied by the methods of science. So being interested in science covers it perfectly well. So there is no "both" about it.
    Last edited by exchemist; October 12th, 2017 at 09:11 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post
    Well, if it looks foolish then hopefully what I'm actually saying/doing will put that straight.
    It's already been noted that such isn't the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post
    Science is dependent upon human intelligence. Are you interested in both ex?
    Science is a process - one that can be conducted by any logical mind (human or not).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman Ged Mannix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post
    Science is dependent upon human intelligence. Are you interested in both ex?
    No. Or, not if you insist on separating human intelligence from science. Human intelligence can be studied by the methods of science. So being interested in science covers it perfectly well. So there is no "both" about it.

    Good point exchemist, I don't see science as separate from human intelligence. Language is dualistic. But it can be used skilfully to express concepts that attempt to communicate something that doesn't conform to dualistic thinking, however it is sometimes much more long-winded as there can be a need to second-guess the response to the language used and then to ameliorate that response--more accurately a reaction--by qualifying statements with "this does not mean" or "this may seem to imply" and other phrases (I don't know the grammatical term for these 'phrases', preposition? disclaimer? qualify seems good).

    Human intelligence can't be studied by the methods of science, though. Human intelligence is synonymous with human consciousness. It has no origin or extent. That means science can study the world or the Universe using human intelligence , it can study objects in the world, but human intelligence isn't an object and without an origin it cannot be approached in order to study it. The simple way to see this, in your own experience, is to experience an object, like a laptop, and try to find where the human intelligence is that made it. If you believe that would be in the brain for example, then it certainly hasn't been found there either. It hasn't been found because human intelligence doesn't have any aspects that can be studied, it is completely free of aspects, differentiation or delineation. if it did have a limit or a discrete aspect then that would always be present no matter what was being experienced, like rose-tinted glasses or a wet shoe in terms of analogy. But what we see in our own experience is that our very own human intelligence is our consciousness and it knows all experiences without judging, criticising, rejecting or even accepting any experience. All those activities are the work of thoughts, and thoughts are simply experiences within consciousness or human intelligence but thought has become mesmerizing to human beings and is seen as the pinnacle of our intelligence. How can the pinnacle of our intelligence make us so unhappy, despite times of happiness? How can it be so unpredictable and violent? Of course in reality a thought isn't violent but if given enough credence it can lead to aggression, most of it verbal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post
    Language is dualistic.
    No it's not.

    Human intelligence can't be studied by the methods of science, though. Human intelligence is synonymous with human consciousness. It has no origin or extent.
    Stop making unsupported statements like this.

    because human intelligence doesn't have any aspects that can be studied, it is completely free of aspects, differentiation or delineation.
    Absolute unmitigated boll*cks.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman Ged Mannix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post
    Language is dualistic.
    No it's not.

    Human intelligence can't be studied by the methods of science, though. Human intelligence is synonymous with human consciousness. It has no origin or extent.
    Stop making unsupported statements like this.

    because human intelligence doesn't have any aspects that can be studied, it is completely free of aspects, differentiation or delineation.
    Absolute unmitigated boll*cks.
    "No it's not" is an unsupported statement.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,436
    Just get rid of the clown...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post
    "No it's not" is an unsupported statement.
    Correct.
    Then again YOU made an unsupported claim (after having been told numerous times that they're not acceptable) so all I did was show the the same (lack of courtesy) that you have persistently engaged in.
    (IOW don't try to get clever with your responses because A) it won't work and B) it's an obvious deflection from even trying to give your position any credibility)

    For the record:
    dualistic - 1. of, relating to, or of the nature of dualism.
    2. dual; twofold.
    Dualism - 1. the state of being dual or consisting of two parts; division into two.

    2. Philosophy.
    • the view that there are just two mutually irreducible substances. Compare monism, pluralism.

    • the view that substances are either material or mental.



    3. Theology.
    • the doctrine that there are two independent divine beings or eternal principles, one good and the other evil.
    • the belief that a human being embodies two parts, as body and soul.


    In order then:
    1) Language is "twofold"? How so? Unless you can demonstrate exactly how it is then it's safe to assume that it's not.
    2) Does language gave two "mutually irreducible substance"? Again, not that has been shown.
    3) I doubt that you meant it in the religious sense, but if you did then go ahead and support the claim.

    There's always the other option where you used the word "dualistic" in a non-conventional sense (without, as usual, bothering to explain it), in which case we're back to the earlier problem of eschewing all definitions and therefore the only reason for rejecting/ accepting an "answer" is personal preference (and personal preferences are simply that and don't need supporting).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman Ged Mannix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    87
    Thanks for the pointers. Language is dualistic because it is based upon concepts of thought which essentially divide all experience of the world into subject and object. Is that ok?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post
    Thanks for the pointers. Language is dualistic because it is based upon concepts of thought which essentially divide all experience of the world into subject and object. Is that ok?
    Nope: since not all thought is limited merely to subject/ object.
    And even if it were the "fact" that language is based on concepts of thought1 that are dualistic doesn't necessarily mean language maintains, or even limits itself, to that property.

    1 That too is disputable.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman Ged Mannix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    87
    Everything is 'disputable'

    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    So still no support for your claims.
    While I admit that it's far easier to deflect/ sidetrack your record here with regard to making unsupported (indeed, counterfactual) claims doesn't let you off that easily.
    See you in 3 days.
    You can't say you weren't warned...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman Quantumologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post
    Language is dualistic.
    No it's not.

    Human intelligence can't be studied by the methods of science, though. Human intelligence is synonymous with human consciousness. It has no origin or extent.
    Stop making unsupported statements like this.

    because human intelligence doesn't have any aspects that can be studied, it is completely free of aspects, differentiation or delineation.
    Absolute unmitigated boll*cks.
    I don't understand what is gained by this. How are the interests of science - or the public interest, which is relevant too since this is a public forum - served by this example?
    Having read Ged's Intro thread, I've amended this post slightly as the dialogue there is self-explanatory. However...
    Could Exchemist please define 'trolling' as used in the context on this thread?

    We know there are areas of scientific interest which have not been defined, consciousness being one of them. Aspects of physics (therefore the other sciences by default) are still open to interpretation. These areas are under study and interested parties are watching what's going on. I would like to take part in the discussions here without offending anyone, but it seems that posting appropriate material, offence, and use of humour are subject to rules which appear inconsistent in application.
    Last edited by Quantumologist; October 14th, 2017 at 04:20 AM. Reason: Read Ged's Intro post - amended accordingly
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantumologist View Post
    We know there are areas of scientific interest which have not been defined, consciousness being one of them.
    Sure.
    But - bearing in mind that this is (primarily) a science site - then Ged's unsupported woo (which he has constantly been warned about) has no place.
    Opinion/ belief without argument (at least) or evidence (at best) doesn't help at all.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman Ged Mannix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    87
    'Unsupported' seems to mean 'not having evidence outside of the brain that makes the statements'. I never use 'outside evidence' to discover my consciousness because it is primary to all experience of mind, body or world. I don't argue either. Argument is an aggressive use of language to repel or remove someone and avoid entering into discussion out of a subtle fear or obvious fear of being exposed to the discomfort of truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post
    'Unsupported' seems to mean 'not having evidence outside of the brain that makes the statements'.
    Then, obviously, you don't know what "evidence" means.

    I never use 'outside evidence' to discover my consciousness because it is primary to all experience of mind, body or world.
    Then you don't have evidence at all.

    Argument is an aggressive use of language to repel or remove someone and avoid entering into discussion out of a subtle fear or obvious fear of being exposed to the discomfort of truth.
    And, equally obviously, you don't know what "argument" means in this context.
    Clue: noun effort to convince; presentation of support.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Well, someone who is completely uneducated (i.e. Ged) would never have had to write essays where they develop an "argument". So the fact he doesn't know what the words means is not too surprising. Just another sign of his total ignorance.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantumologist View Post
    However...
    Could Exchemist please define 'trolling' as used in the context on this thread?
    I'm not sure anyone has mentioned trolling in this thread, apart from my inclusion of it in a list of some of a moderator's duties.

    I can give you a general description of what trolling is, if you really do not know, but I'm not sure what you mean by "in the context of this thread". Can you clarify?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman Quantumologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post
    'Unsupported' seems to mean 'not having evidence outside of the brain that makes the statements'.
    Then, obviously, you don't know what "evidence" means.

    I never use 'outside evidence' to discover my consciousness because it is primary to all experience of mind, body or world.
    Then you don't have evidence at all.

    Argument is an aggressive use of language to repel or remove someone and avoid entering into discussion out of a subtle fear or obvious fear of being exposed to the discomfort of truth.
    And, equally obviously, you don't know what "argument" means in this context.
    Clue: noun effort to convince; presentation of support.
    I guess bullying and intimidation also come under the description "effort to convince". The term "presentation of support" is not quantified as "presentation of support in a restrictive format as required by the powerful minority". You ask for supporting evidence, yet this too appears (from my own experience) to be acceptable only in restricted formats as required by the wise men who leave little room or inclination for others to post on the threads where comments such as those posted above create discomfort and disinclination to intelligently discuss. As is continually argued by these contributors, "This is a Science site," but arguably that does not mean everyoone posting on it has to have a PhD, or to be completely conversant with the topics they post about (in fact, such would go against the whole point of a forum). To state that human intelligence cannot be studed by science is at the very least as reasonable as declaring someone with different belief systems or intellectual values to have no intelligence at all.

    Trolling is, as far as I understand it, excessive posting with hostile or desultory intent, abuse and ridicule of other parties for entertainment. Here is the Wiki description: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

    I believe, given the supporting evidence, that in this context (and all others where reasonable scientific questions or comments have been posted only to be obliterated by the same methods) I can safely rest my case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantumologist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post
    'Unsupported' seems to mean 'not having evidence outside of the brain that makes the statements'.
    Then, obviously, you don't know what "evidence" means.

    I never use 'outside evidence' to discover my consciousness because it is primary to all experience of mind, body or world.
    Then you don't have evidence at all.

    Argument is an aggressive use of language to repel or remove someone and avoid entering into discussion out of a subtle fear or obvious fear of being exposed to the discomfort of truth.
    And, equally obviously, you don't know what "argument" means in this context.
    Clue: noun effort to convince; presentation of support.
    I guess bullying and intimidation also come under the description "effort to convince". The term "presentation of support" is not quantified as "presentation of support in a restrictive format as required by the powerful minority". You ask for supporting evidence, yet this too appears (from my own experience) to be acceptable only in restricted formats as required by the wise men who leave little room or inclination for others to post on the threads where comments such as those posted above create discomfort and disinclination to intelligently discuss. As is continually argued by these contributors, "This is a Science site," but arguably that does not mean everyoone posting on it has to have a PhD, or to be completely conversant with the topics they post about (in fact, such would go against the whole point of a forum). To state that human intelligence cannot be studed by science is at the very least as reasonable as declaring someone with different belief systems or intellectual values to have no intelligence at all.

    Trolling is, as far as I understand it, excessive posting with hostile or desultory intent, abuse and ridicule of other parties for entertainment. Here is the Wiki description: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

    I believe, given the supporting evidence, that in this context (and all others where reasonable scientific questions or comments have been posted only to be obliterated by the same methods) I can safely rest my case.
    Your case would be aided if you yourself could either show backing for the claims you make, or stop making claims where you can't do that. No serious discussion of ANY subject, whether science or anything else, can be had if there is not an expectation that people will be prepared to respond to challenges to their ideas and to support their claims.

    I am still waiting for you to respond to (a) my questions to you concerning your claims about EM fields or energy supposedly associated with life (or something, I forget the details) and ( b ) why you think free will has anything to do with the thought processes of science.

    Do you intend to respond? (When you get back from your talk to Wyvern Dowsers.)
    Last edited by exchemist; October 17th, 2017 at 04:48 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post
    Thanks for the pointers. Language is dualistic because it is based upon concepts of thought which essentially divide all experience of the world into subject and object. Is that ok?
    It is false.

    Sentences can have zero subjects and or objects. They can have more than one subject or object. They can have more than just subject and object (actor, agent, indirect object, ...)

    So basically, all you are doing is demonstrating that linguistics is another subject you know fuck all about.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Freshman Ged Mannix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    87
    yes, science can try to study consciousness but it can't find the source of it or it's qualities, because they are already present, you can't find what is already present, you would be the consciousness which is looking to find itself somewhere. How can you find what has no physical, mental, emotional or any other qualities? But of course Quantum', I am using words in a way disagreed with here or found to be uncomfortable. (which is fine, nothing wrong with that at all, though I would encourage all to avoid hostility, not because it affects me but because it affects the judgement, state of mind and true enjoyment of those feeling the hostility. And expressing hostility will only ever provide temporary relief. That is why we have all had the experience in our past of repeatedly resorting to expressing hostility: it brings some relief, temporarily, and then returns and needs to be expressed again to provide more temporary relief. That is not a pleasant way to live or relate, for anyone ) We can start from the beginning if you (meaning anyone here) like with the word 'consciousness' to see if you can agree on the definition I offer? Or you can offer your own definition and we can work on it that way. Maybe then that will help the discussion. I am happy to make it clear again that I have no malice, no ill will, no mental illness, no hostility at all to anyone here or anything they might say. None. I'm sorry if it doesn't seem that way. Being on this forum with knowledgeable people is important. And I enjoy it and yet I can see that it is annoying, irritating, frustrating, and more for those who read some (or all) of my posts and replies. Again, I am sorry this is the case. I'm genuinely sorry in fact, because were I able to discuss science at the intricate level at which it is generally discussed here, I wouldn't do it because there are enough capable scientists on this forum and elsewhere, adding refinement to existing scientific understanding using scientific knowledge and experience is not really an option for me as a non-scientist. You're all too far ahead of me. And I still won't find human consciousness or its source or origins or its presumed qualities even if I did leap into the vanguard of scientific inquiry, because it is already fully present and complete. I can go into that further if you like. But here I have again written perhaps too much for some.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman Ged Mannix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post
    Thanks for the pointers. Language is dualistic because it is based upon concepts of thought which essentially divide all experience of the world into subject and object. Is that ok?
    It is false.

    Sentences can have zero subjects and or objects. They can have more than one subject or object. They can have more than just subject and object (actor, agent, indirect object, ...)

    So basically, all you are doing is demonstrating that linguistics is another subject you know fuck all about.

    A sentence isn't language. Just as a droplet isn't an ocean. But they are seamless with each other.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman Quantumologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    76
    Let's not get too carried away with the apologies, Ged, but instead concentrate on the problem. The problem with this pattern which we (as people who are interested in Woo as well as in Physics) are seeing over and over again is just that - a pattern. A pattern of behaviour, if you like. What we are being led to discuss is off-topic as it doesn't actually relate to oral sex but even here on this thread, obscure as it may be, we have the same antagonists running at our ankles like terriers trained to hunt 'people of a certain persuasion'. Not only is this behaviour hostile, it's also discriminatory. Plenty of comments appear in this forum which have nothing to do with the topic, or are made without evidence, or are simply random assertions. It's a public forum, not a classroom, and as such you would expect to have some freedom of expression. Perhaps that was a bad analogy......

    Let's keep our posts succinct and entertaining without gettinng drawn too deeply into the dark tunnel where the terriers will be joined by ferrets which could end up down your trousers. If anyone wants to look up EM fields, human resonance, vibration and frequencies, they'll find lots of stuff in questions, answers, papers etc discussing these things. During sex, it's quite probable that the vibratiional frequency is raised, but one should perhaps be careful of drowning in more extreme contexts of oral indulgence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post
    [SIZE=3]yes, science can try to study consciousness but it can't find the source of it or it's qualities, because they are already present, you can't find what is already present
    Really? There are plants "already present" in my garden. But I can still find them, and their source.

    And this is just another of your baseless and idiotic assertions presented without evidence. It can therefore be refuted with exactly the same level of evidence and logic, thus: you are wrong.

    or found to be uncomfortable
    Ah, yes. All crackpots love to think they are making people uncomfortable or cross because they are presenting such "dangerous new ideas".

    But, sadly, any mild irritation with your pontificating is because they are the content-free musings of an uneducated idiot.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Ged Mannix View Post
    [SIZE=4]A sentence isn't language.
    Wow. What a stunning insight.

    In which case your point is even more bogus. Language itself is not based on subjects and objects. These distinctions apply only to verbs (a small subset of the components of language) so my point about the non-duality of sentences still applies to verbs, and therefore to all language.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantumologist View Post
    Let's keep our posts succinct and entertaining without gettinng drawn too deeply into the dark tunnel where the terriers will be joined by ferrets which could end up down your trousers. If anyone wants to look up EM fields, human resonance, vibration and frequencies, they'll find lots of stuff in questions, answers, papers etc discussing these things. During sex, it's quite probable that the vibratiional frequency is raised, but one should perhaps be careful of drowning in more extreme contexts of oral indulgence.
    Sorry, but you have the responsibility to provide evidence to support you claims. You can't fob people off with "go and look it up yourself".
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantumologist View Post
    I guess bullying and intimidation


    You ask for supporting evidence, yet this too appears (from my own experience) to be acceptable only in restricted formats as required by the wise men who leave little room or inclination for others to post on the threads where comments such as those posted above create discomfort and disinclination to intelligently discuss.
    The point that you (and Ged) appear to be missing (or perhaps ignoring) is that this is a science forum. Ergo the"restricted format" is that of science.

    As is continually argued by these contributors, "This is a Science site," but arguably that does not mean everyoone posting on it has to have a PhD, or to be completely conversant with the topics they post about (in fact, such would go against the whole point of a forum).
    Correct, there is no requirement for a PhD. But there IS a requirement that topics are discussed with reference to science and its methodology.
    Unsupported claims are invalid.
    Woo is invalid.
    Opinion is invalid.

    To state that human intelligence cannot be studed by science is at the very least as reasonable as declaring someone with different belief systems or intellectual values to have no intelligence at all.
    Without evidence or argument it remains an opinion - and as such is valueless with regard to science.

    I believe, given the supporting evidence, that in this context (and all others where reasonable scientific questions or comments have been posted only to be obliterated by the same methods) I can safely rest my case.
    Yeah...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantumologist View Post
    Let's not get too carried away with the apologies, Ged, but instead concentrate on the problem. The problem with this pattern which we (as people who are interested in Woo as well as in Physics) are seeing over and over again is just that - a pattern. A pattern of behaviour, if you like. What we are being led to discuss is off-topic as it doesn't actually relate to oral sex but even here on this thread, obscure as it may be, we have the same antagonists running at our ankles like terriers trained to hunt 'people of a certain persuasion'. Not only is this behaviour hostile, it's also discriminatory.
    Ah.
    To go with an analogy I've used (much) earlier: complaining that woo meets a hostile reception here is as valid (and accurate) as complaining that skateboarding gets a hostile reception at a classical music recital.
    Effectively we have large posters up saying "Classical music tonight", the tickets state "Classical music", the audience (for the most part) have turned up expecting to listen to classical music... and then you (and your ilk) arrive with skateboards under your arms, whizz round the hall a couple of times and then, when it's pointed out that you're in the wrong place at the wrong time for what you're doing (and that there are other facilities available for your interests) you start to scream "Oppression! Discrimination!".
    That's not only wrong, it's wrong-headed.

    Case in point: "I am using words in a way disagreed with here" Ged is aware that he uses words in a non-standard way. He's been asked to explain what he means when he does so but not only continues in his non-standard usage but refuses to provide any definition...
    He makes zero effort to be intelligible and yet here you are defending him and chastising us.

    If anyone wants to look up EM fields, human resonance, vibration and frequencies, they'll find lots of stuff in questions, answers, papers etc discussing these things.
    Except that, since YOU raised the topic it's up to YOU to provide (relevant) links.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; October 17th, 2017 at 10:58 AM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Why does man perceive god made Man in his image
    By Genesis in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 13th, 2011, 05:25 AM
  2. How a still man experiences a moving man in lights direction
    By LeavingQuietly in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: July 7th, 2010, 02:55 PM
  3. English oral
    By Heinsbergrelatz in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 16th, 2010, 09:38 AM
  4. Man of sciences vs. science of man
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 23rd, 2008, 08:07 AM
  5. Receiving our broadcasts in space.
    By Pumblechook in forum Electrical and Electronics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: December 7th, 2007, 05:42 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •