quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic
First... you say that you are not an "evolutionist" ( never heard that term before. Is it like "gravitationist?)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
In a discussion about Weinstein in the Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion (Where Have All the SJWs Gone?), the topic of consent came up and I thought it would make a good thread on its own but felt it belonged in General BDSM Discussion rather than the Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion.

First a disclaimer, I believe in consent and I'm not an evolutionist but since it seems most here are evolutionists, I will open from an evolutionist stand point.

Evolution says mankind has been here for millions of years and so it would seem consent and gender equality are relatively new concepts and so it begs the question are they things that mankind has evolved and if not then has mankind had a chance to evolve in response to them? Or are these just concepts laid in a thin veneer over deep set evolutionary programming we have received over billions of years of evolution?

First... you say that you are not an "evolutionist" ( never heard that term before. Is it like "gravitationist?) ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic
but then you clearly go on based on a "survival of the fittest" type mentality based on the animal world, as if it would have some relevance to modern human interactions. Of course, as someone else pointed out, mankind has not been here for millions of years, so in that sense I believe that you are not an "evolutionist".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic
Second... the concept of consent is fundamental to humanity. Consent is rooted in the individual awareness that one does not want to have done to one, by another, what one does not want done. The idea that we would not like things done to us unless we consented to them is not a modern idea. The social contract around consent, and the methods we use to negotiate it is a social evolution... but it is an evolution of social practice around a fundamental human concept.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic
In a sense, even the animal world has a concept of consent, but lacking the human intellect, they are limited to negotiating consent only with violence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic
First... you say that you are not an "evolutionist" ( never heard that term before. Is it like "gravitationist?)

It is, depressing though it might be to relate, a popular term among creationists and other elements of the religious right's lunatic fringe. You know: the sort of people who like to insist that those who find scientific evidence more convincing than the only religious text that matters are members of some weird pagan cult devoted to technophillia and the worship of science like some sort of post technology cargo cult out of a '50s SF story?
It's part of that whole "we don't look at stuff rationally, so we refuse to accept than anybody who disagrees with us is either, so there!" thing...

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic
First... you say that you are not an "evolutionist" ( never heard that term before. Is it like "gravitationist?)

It is, depressing though it might be to relate, a popular term among creationists and other elements of the religious right's lunatic fringe. You know: the sort of people who like to insist that those who find scientific evidence more convincing than the only religious text that matters are members of some weird pagan cult devoted to technophillia and the worship of science like some sort of post technology cargo cult out of a '50s SF story?
It's part of that whole "we don't look at stuff rationally, so we refuse to accept than anybody who disagrees with us is either, so there!" thing...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
In a discussion about Weinstein in the Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion (Where Have All the SJWs Gone?), the topic of consent came up and I thought it would make a good thread on its own but felt it belonged in General BDSM Discussion rather than the Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion.

First a disclaimer, I believe in consent and I'm not an evolutionist but since it seems most here are evolutionists, I will open from an evolutionist stand point.

Evolution says mankind has been here for millions of years and so it would seem consent and gender equality are relatively new concepts and so it begs the question are they things that mankind has evolved and if not then has mankind had a chance to evolve in response to them? Or are these just concepts laid in a thin veneer over deep set evolutionary programming we have received over billions of years of evolution?

First... you say that you are not an "evolutionist" ( never heard that term before. Is it like "gravitationist?) ...

Here you go:
ev·o·lu·tion·ist
[ˌevəˈlo͞oSHənəst]
NOUN
a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.
ADJECTIVE
of or relating to the theories of evolution and natural selection:
"an evolutionist model"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
but then you clearly go on based on a "survival of the fittest" type mentality based on the animal world, as if it would have some relevance to modern human interactions. Of course, as someone else pointed out, mankind has not been here for millions of years, so in that sense I believe that you are not an "evolutionist".

I was not trying to give the exact amount of time mankind kind has been on the Earth, just indicate that it was a fairly long time. Even evolutionists disagree on how long that is but if it bothers you, here is what is generally accepted at this time:
Modern humans, defined as the species Homo sapiens or specifically to the single extant subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, proceeded to colonize all the continents and larger islands, arriving in Eurasia 125,000–60,000 years ago, Australia around 40,000 years ago, the Americas around 15,000 years ago, and remote islands such as Hawaii, Easter Island, Madagascar, and New Zealand between the years 300 and 1280.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
Second... the concept of consent is fundamental to humanity. Consent is rooted in the individual awareness that one does not want to have done to one, by another, what one does not want done. The idea that we would not like things done to us unless we consented to them is not a modern idea. The social contract around consent, and the methods we use to negotiate it is a social evolution... but it is an evolution of social practice around a fundamental human concept.

And just how would you know how mankind felt about consent 125,000 years ago or even if they had a concept of consent?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
In a sense, even the animal world has a concept of consent, but lacking the human intellect, they are limited to negotiating consent only with violence.

Again, just how would you know if animals have a concept of consent?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
In a discussion about Weinstein in the Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion (Where Have All the SJWs Gone?), the topic of consent came up and I thought it would make a good thread on its own but felt it belonged in General BDSM Discussion rather than the Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion.

First a disclaimer, I believe in consent and I'm not an evolutionist but since it seems most here are evolutionists, I will open from an evolutionist stand point.

Evolution says mankind has been here for millions of years and so it would seem consent and gender equality are relatively new concepts and so it begs the question are they things that mankind has evolved and if not then has mankind had a chance to evolve in response to them? Or are these just concepts laid in a thin veneer over deep set evolutionary programming we have received over billions of years of evolution?

First... you say that you are not an "evolutionist" ( never heard that term before. Is it like "gravitationist?) ...

Here you go:
ev·o·lu·tion·ist
[ˌevəˈlo͞oSHənəst]
NOUN
a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.
ADJECTIVE
of or relating to the theories of evolution and natural selection:
"an evolutionist model"

Thanks... I think I'm going to go with WhoreMods' definition.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
but then you clearly go on based on a "survival of the fittest" type mentality based on the animal world, as if it would have some relevance to modern human interactions. Of course, as someone else pointed out, mankind has not been here for millions of years, so in that sense I believe that you are not an "evolutionist".

I was not trying to give the exact amount of time mankind kind has been on the Earth, just indicate that it was a fairly long time. Even evolutionists disagree on how long that is but if it bothers you, here is what is generally accepted at this time:
Modern humans, defined as the species Homo sapiens or specifically to the single extant subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, proceeded to colonize all the continents and larger islands, arriving in Eurasia 125,000–60,000 years ago, Australia around 40,000 years ago, the Americas around 15,000 years ago, and remote islands such as Hawaii, Easter Island, Madagascar, and New Zealand between the years 300 and 1280.

Not an exact amount, nor even remotely close. Maybe do your Googling before posting?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
Second... the concept of consent is fundamental to humanity. Consent is rooted in the individual awareness that one does not want to have done to one, by another, what one does not want done. The idea that we would not like things done to us unless we consented to them is not a modern idea. The social contract around consent, and the methods we use to negotiate it is a social evolution... but it is an evolution of social practice around a fundamental human concept.

And just how would you know how mankind felt about consent 125,000 years ago or even if they had a concept of consent?

The same way I know mankind slept when they got tired 125,000 years ago, and liked warmth, and got hungry... it's fundamental to the human condition.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
In a sense, even the animal world has a concept of consent, but lacking the human intellect, they are limited to negotiating consent only with violence.

Again, just how would you know if animals have a concept of consent?

Because when they want you to pet them, they let you, and when they don't want you to pet them, they bite you... these are fundamental expressions of consent and non consent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
In a discussion about Weinstein in the Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion (Where Have All the SJWs Gone?), the topic of consent came up and I thought it would make a good thread on its own but felt it belonged in General BDSM Discussion rather than the Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion.

First a disclaimer, I believe in consent and I'm not an evolutionist but since it seems most here are evolutionists, I will open from an evolutionist stand point.

Evolution says mankind has been here for millions of years and so it would seem consent and gender equality are relatively new concepts and so it begs the question are they things that mankind has evolved and if not then has mankind had a chance to evolve in response to them? Or are these just concepts laid in a thin veneer over deep set evolutionary programming we have received over billions of years of evolution?

First... you say that you are not an "evolutionist" ( never heard that term before. Is it like "gravitationist?) ...

Here you go:
ev·o·lu·tion·ist
[ˌevəˈlo͞oSHənəst]
NOUN
a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.
ADJECTIVE
of or relating to the theories of evolution and natural selection:
"an evolutionist model"

Thanks... I think I'm going to go with WhoreMods' definition.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic
but then you clearly go on based on a "survival of the fittest" type mentality based on the animal world, as if it would have some relevance to modern human interactions. Of course, as someone else pointed out, mankind has not been here for millions of years, so in that sense I believe that you are not an "evolutionist".

I was not trying to give the exact amount of time mankind kind has been on the Earth, just indicate that it was a fairly long time. Even evolutionists disagree on how long that is but if it bothers you, here is what is generally accepted at this time:
Modern humans, defined as the species Homo sapiens or specifically to the single extant subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, proceeded to colonize all the continents and larger islands, arriving in Eurasia 125,000–60,000 years ago, Australia around 40,000 years ago, the Americas around 15,000 years ago, and remote islands such as Hawaii, Easter Island, Madagascar, and New Zealand between the years 300 and 1280.

Not an exact amount, nor even remotely close. Maybe do your Googling before posting?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic
Second... the concept of consent is fundamental to humanity. Consent is rooted in the individual awareness that one does not want to have done to one, by another, what one does not want done. The idea that we would not like things done to us unless we consented to them is not a modern idea. The social contract around consent, and the methods we use to negotiate it is a social evolution... but it is an evolution of social practice around a fundamental human concept.

And just how would you know how mankind felt about consent 125,000 years ago or even if they had a concept of consent?

The same way I know mankind slept when they got tired 125,000 years ago, and liked warmth, and got hungry... it's fundamental to the human condition.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic
In a sense, even the animal world has a concept of consent, but lacking the human intellect, they are limited to negotiating consent only with violence.

Again, just how would you know if animals have a concept of consent?

Because when they want you to pet them, they let you, and when they don't want you to pet them, they bite you... these are fundamental expressions of consent and non consent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
In a discussion about Weinstein in the Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion (Where Have All the SJWs Gone?), the topic of consent came up and I thought it would make a good thread on its own but felt it belonged in General BDSM Discussion rather than the Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion.

First a disclaimer, I believe in consent and I'm not an evolutionist but since it seems most here are evolutionists, I will open from an evolutionist stand point.

Evolution says mankind has been here for millions of years and so it would seem consent and gender equality are relatively new concepts and so it begs the question are they things that mankind has evolved and if not then has mankind had a chance to evolve in response to them? Or are these just concepts laid in a thin veneer over deep set evolutionary programming we have received over billions of years of evolution?

First... you say that you are not an "evolutionist" ( never heard that term before. Is it like "gravitationist?) ...

Here you go:
ev·o·lu·tion·ist
[ˌevəˈlo͞oSHənəst]
NOUN
a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.
ADJECTIVE
of or relating to the theories of evolution and natural selection:
"an evolutionist model"

Thanks... I think I'm going to go with WhoreMods' definition.

That sounds about right for you, go with WhoreMods' made-up definition rather a generally accepted dictionary definition.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
nice post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
Conservapedia isn't a dictionary, mustache boy. Want to see what Collins and the OED have to say about your "dictionary" definition?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
It is, depressing though it might be to relate, a popular term among creationists and other elements of the religious right's lunatic fringe. You know: the sort of people who like to insist that those who find scientific evidence more convincing than the only religious text that matters are members of some weird pagan cult devoted to technophillia and the worship of science like some sort of post technology cargo cult out of a '50s SF story?
It's part of that whole "we don't look at stuff rationally, so we refuse to accept than anybody who disagrees with us is either, so there!" thing...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
yes, really
fuck off with your ad homs
What a pathetic response, and im not discussing your strawmen either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
Conservapedia isn't a dictionary, mustache boy. Want to see what Collins and the OED have to say about your "dictionary" definition?

Hi Froggy, I see that you are still trying to be "relevant" without actually having anything to say about the actual OP.

Okay let’s look at your “definition” and I use the word very loosely:

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
It is, depressing though it might be to relate, a popular term among creationists and other elements of the religious right's lunatic fringe. You know: the sort of people who like to insist that those who find scientific evidence more convincing than the only religious text that matters are members of some weird pagan cult devoted to technophillia and the worship of science like some sort of post technology cargo cult out of a '50s SF story?
It's part of that whole "we don't look at stuff rationally, so we refuse to accept than anybody who disagrees with us is either, so there!" thing...

Now let’s compare it to actual dictionary definitions:
First the one I used:

Oxford Dictionaries:
ev·o·lu·tion·ist
[ˌevəˈlo͞oSHənəst]
NOUN
evolutionists (plural noun)
1. a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.
ADJECTIVE
1. of or relating to the theories of evolution and natural selection:
"an evolutionist model"

Dictionary.com:
evolutionist
[ev-uh-loo-shuh-nist or, esp. British, ee-vuh-]
noun
1.
a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology.
2.
a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.
adjective, Also, evolutionistic
3.
of or relating to evolution or evolutionists.
4.
believing in or supporting a theory of evolution, especially in biology.

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary:
ev•o•lu•tion•ist
(ˌɛv əˈlu ʃə nɪst; esp. Brit. ˌi və-)
n.
1. a person who believes in or supports the principles of evolution in biology.
2. a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.
adj.
3. of or pertaining to evolution or evolutionists.
4. believing in or supporting the principles of evolution in biology.

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged:
evolutionist
(ˌiːvəˈluːʃənɪst)
n
(Biology) a person who believes in a theory of evolution, esp Darwin's theory of the evolution of plant and animal species
adj
(Biology) of or relating to a theory of evolution

I could go on but they’re all pretty much the same and they all show that your “definition” is pretty much the lunatic ravings of a 12 year old with an axe to grind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
Conservapedia isn't a dictionary, mustache boy. Want to see what Collins and the OED have to say about your "dictionary" definition?

Hi Froggy, I see that you are still trying to be "relevant" without actually having anything to say about the actual OP.

Okay let’s look at your “definition” and I use the word very loosely:

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
It is, depressing though it might be to relate, a popular term among creationists and other elements of the religious right's lunatic fringe. You know: the sort of people who like to insist that those who find scientific evidence more convincing than the only religious text that matters are members of some weird pagan cult devoted to technophillia and the worship of science like some sort of post technology cargo cult out of a '50s SF story?
It's part of that whole "we don't look at stuff rationally, so we refuse to accept than anybody who disagrees with us is either, so there!" thing...

Now let’s compare it to actual dictionary definitions:
First the one I used:

Oxford Dictionaries:
ev·o·lu·tion·ist
[ˌevəˈlo͞oSHənəst]
NOUN
evolutionists (plural noun)
1. a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.
ADJECTIVE
1. of or relating to the theories of evolution and natural selection:
"an evolutionist model"

Dictionary.com:
evolutionist
[ev-uh-loo-shuh-nist or, esp. British, ee-vuh-]
noun
1.
a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology.
2.
a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.
adjective, Also, evolutionistic
3.
of or relating to evolution or evolutionists.
4.
believing in or supporting a theory of evolution, especially in biology.

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary:
ev•o•lu•tion•ist
(ˌɛv əˈlu ʃə nɪst; esp. Brit. ˌi və-)
n.
1. a person who believes in or supports the principles of evolution in biology.
2. a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.
adj.
3. of or pertaining to evolution or evolutionists.
4. believing in or supporting the principles of evolution in biology.

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged:
evolutionist
(ˌiːvəˈluːʃənɪst)
n
(Biology) a person who believes in a theory of evolution, esp Darwin's theory of the evolution of plant and animal species
adj
(Biology) of or relating to a theory of evolution

I could go on but they’re all pretty much the same and they all show that your “definition” is pretty much the lunatic ravings of a 12 year old with an axe to grind.

Your claimed OED citation does not match the one in either the concise or the shorter OED.
Nice evasion, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
yes, really
fuck off with your ad homs
What a pathetic response, and im not discussing your strawmen either.

Wow, you calling someone's response pathetic.

At least I took the time to actually think up a post, as apposed to your "amazing wonderful awe inspiring... "fuck off"".

I feel truly edified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
yes, really
fuck off with your ad homs
What a pathetic response, and im not discussing your strawmen either.

Wow, you calling someone's response pathetic.

At least I took the time to actually think up a post, as apposed to your "amazing wonderful awe inspiring... "fuck off"".

I feel truly edified.

you questioned my response with a load of bs, Im not pandering to your idiocy.
take it how you like, its not worth my time to give you an extended fuck off.
you dont get to decide what version you get. I do. tough titties.

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

FR

Been away for a couple of weeks and wondering why we are still participating in the OP's rambling, self-absorbed ego trip.

Confused thesis followed by contradictions and the telling everyone else what a load of crap they are speaking.