Pharyngula

An analysis of the consumption of internet pornography found that there are only small differences between states, but that there are some patterns. The patterns will not surprise anyone.

The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000. “The differences here are not so stark,” Edelman says.

…

Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year’s presidential election – Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama.

So Republican states gobbled up more nekkid pitchers than Democratic states… but of course, one could argue that it was just the few Democrats in Utah who were slavering most obsessively over porn, while the Republican Mormons were being upright (no, wait, maybe that’s the wrong word…) Montana is a conservative state, too, but maybe the ready availability of all those cows helps slake their forbidden lusts.^*

What about those good Christians?

States where a majority of residents agreed with the statement “I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage,” bought 3.6 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement “AIDS might be God’s punishment for immoral sexual behaviour.”

Heh. Now we all know what “values” is a code word for.

^*Uh-oh. Here comes all the hate mail from Montanans.

Comments

#1 Rev. BigDumbChimp
February 27, 2009

The real question is

Why are people buying porn at all?

There’s free porn everywhere. So much so it’s putting a hurting on the Porn industry.
#2 AnthonyK
February 27, 2009

On an intellectual level, I find Christianity is fully the equal of torture porn. I speak as a consumer of neither.
#3 Treppenwitz
February 27, 2009

Alternative explanation: users in more liberal states are savvier about finding free porn online.
#4 Bob L
February 27, 2009

Kind of odd about the Mormons in Utah since they are encouraged to about and fornicate with each other. The self pollution bit with prono is the no-no for them. Maybe the forbidden fruit thing increases the thrill for the Mormons.

Or it could be, and what else do you do in Salt Lake city when you can’t drink?
#5 pksp
February 27, 2009

I look at paid porn subscription volume simply as a function of socioeconomic status and societal restrictions.

Poorer areas = less to do = people dumb enough to pay for porn = republican areas = buy more porn.

Utah restricts all porn sold in the state to softcore only = republican area = buy more porn (hardcore stuff).
#6 norm!
February 27, 2009

Mormons are abviously just doing research into the perils that await one who removes his or her magic underwear.
#7 Glen Davidson
February 27, 2009

It’s really not a huge difference, and of course one would have to compare all sales and related activities. I mean, if you’re spending your money on whores, you might not spend as much on porn.

This sort of study is about as useful as an internet poll, really.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
#8 Mike in Ontario, NY
February 27, 2009

They doth protest too much, methinks.
#9 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 27, 2009

Not very surprising. The religious think nobody should do these things but them. They are strong enough not to be corrupted. And they wonder why we revel in their hypocracy.
#10 Rev. BigDumbChimp
February 27, 2009

Actually now that you mention it.

I am paying for porn.

Rather, some jackass who stole my credit card number is using it to pay for porn, or was until I caught it.
#11 carel
February 27, 2009

Oops…Stumbled in here inadvertently…thought this was a porn site. Sorry for the intrusion.
#12 SEF
February 27, 2009

The results could have (and indeed previously have been) predicted by the reality-based people about the fantasy-based people but, strangely enough {sarcasm}, is not something the fantasy-based are generally capable of recognising/admitting as the reality about themselves.
#13 doug
February 27, 2009

I think a more interesting comparison would be the tech-savvy:porn purchased comparison. Anyone with a decent knowledge of the internets knows how to get porn for free.
#14 bc23.5
February 27, 2009

“My blood run’s cold, my memory has just been sold
My cephlapod is the centerfold.”

It had to be said.
#15 Greg Laden
February 27, 2009

Be careful. Montana is like, one day driver from Morris.
#16 cervantes
February 27, 2009

You do acknowledge the danger of the ecological fallacy in this case. But there is certainly plenty of evidence that sexual repression brings out a surfeit of porn. The Victorian era in England was famous for it. It also creates a lot of unhealthy sexuality, viz. the Catholic priesthood, Ted Haggard and Larry Craig. So it’s likely that quite a few of those God fearing Mormons are indeed looking at feelthy peectures.
#17 Rrr
February 27, 2009

Uh, wasn’t there a direct correlation between Republican or Democrat conventions being held in a city and how much more business prostitutes got, republican conventions being by far more profitable for the prostitutes as more of them employed that service than the democrat convention goers? I really wish I remembered where I read this.
#18 daveau
February 27, 2009

That helps explain the appeal of Sarah Palin.
#19 Son of a preacher man
February 27, 2009

Actually I love internet porn. My absolute favorite features a women redacted a banana. Everytime I watch it, I think of the argument from banana and laugh and then redacted. If your curious and redacted I will post a link.
#20 ArchangelChuck
February 27, 2009

That’s all wrong. The only difference is that Republicans pay for their Internet porn.
#21 ennui
February 27, 2009

I think we should toss the conversation to our resident expert–What say you, Walton?
#22 Theodore
February 27, 2009

Just imagine how slow PCs and the internet would be if the porn industry wasn’t around to push bandwidth and processing power to its limits.
#23 Norman Doering
February 27, 2009

That’s the consumers of porn. Check to see what the producers of porn believe. I suspect you’ll find a higher than average number of atheists doing the actual acts.
#24 Feynmaniac
February 27, 2009

***Reads title of thread and looks really guilty***
#25 BAllanJ
February 27, 2009

“That helps explain the appeal of Sarah Palin.”

Ahhh, the VPILF candidate.
#26 Mike in Ontario, NY
February 27, 2009

I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if a followup study, replacing porn-for-pay with free or illegally obtained porn, would still reveal similar trends. The more repression, oppression, or prohibition, the more popular the prohibited substance/activity becomes. Forbidden fruit indeed.
#27 Lotharloo
February 27, 2009

Sorry PZ but this is not a very good post. There are lots of different factors involved and IMO no meaningful conclusion can be made from this data.

For example, how do they control for broadband access? Porn, illegal downloading and etc. need broadband access so in an area where it is more difficult to get broadband you would except to see a higher percentage of users interested to those activities than a place where broadband internet is affordable/available for everyone.
#28 Endor
February 27, 2009

“Why are people buying porn at all?”

Esp if they’ve got a real, live person (or persons) in their beds already? Why pay to watch people fake it on screen, when you could actually do it and (presumably) enjoy it? Or at least practice – cuz it makes perfect. I don’t get it.

In all seriousness, I’m completely unsurprised at the results. Hypocritcis thrive in right-leaning and religious circles. The only moral abortion is MY abortion and the only moral wank-fest is MY wank-fest. Besides, the devil made them do it. With a box of tissues and some petroleum jelly.

Okay, that wasn’t serious at all either.
#29 John
February 27, 2009

What kind of porn are you looking at that it is taxing on your hardware?

And, possibly, where can I acquire some? To stress test my computer. For study purposes. To read the articles.
#30 Wallace
February 27, 2009

I wish there was some way to generate reliable statistics on the particular leanings of the subscribers, while maintaining privacy.

It would be delicious irony if Utah had the highest proportion of homosexual pornography subscribers, what with Prop 8.
#31 Ewen Callaway
February 27, 2009

One could also argue that Utah’s dearth of brick-and-mortar adult shops would push their porn-consuming residents online, if not to Nevada.

And this study doesn’t say anything about free online porn, which is how most people probably get their adult content online.

But thanks for linking to our story.
#32 Newfie
February 27, 2009

The Pope doesn’t recognize the Protestants, Christians don’t recognize Islam, and Fundies don’t recognize each other in the liquor store or porn shop.
#33 Patricia, OM
February 27, 2009

ennui – If you get us some libertarian drek on the porn industry, I’m going to ban you from the spanking couch for the rest of the day.
#34 Sven DiMilo
February 27, 2009

Hang on.
Are you people implying that there is porn on the internet?
For free?
I for one am concerned about this news.
#35 Liberal Atheist
February 27, 2009

Perhaps some people need a safety valve. Repressing too much can’t be good…
#36 JRD
February 27, 2009

“For example, how do they control for broadband access? Porn, illegal downloading and etc. need broadband access so in an area where it is more difficult to get broadband you would except to see a higher percentage of users interested to those activities than a place where broadband internet is affordable/available for everyone. ”

So… broadband access is easier to obtain in rural Utah than it is in New York or Massachusetts?
#37 Jim Moodie
February 27, 2009

PZ,you’ve got Montanans wrong. It is not cows, it is sheep. Or else why would the University of Idaho students hang a banner over the visiting basketball team’s bleacher seats when playing U of Montana or Montana State declaring “Montana: where men are men and sheep are nervous!”

Montanans are much less conservative than say…Idahoans by the way.
#38 Sgt. Obvious
February 27, 2009

There are probably a variety of factors at play here, but I can’t shake the feeling that this is another manifestation of saddlebacking. In more liberal areas, there’s no real stigma to going out on a Friday night, meeting somebody, and going back to their place. In more abstinence-pushing areas, on the other hand, that’s unacceptable, so they use porn as a workaround.
#39 Mike in Ontario, NY
February 27, 2009

Norman Boring @23:
That’s an idiotic and baseless assumption, every bit as unprovable and unsupported as your delusional sky daddy fantasies. Back to the pegboard with you, TOOL.
#40 Son of a preacher man
February 27, 2009

why look at porn when you have a real person… 1. you might not have a real person, 2. I highly suggest you watch some porn with your other person.

how to tax your system… its call high definition video… because sometimes I like to listen to ted talk or fora tv while I watch hidef porn and also look for updates on my favorite blogs at the same time.
#41 Reginald Selkirk
February 27, 2009

The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users…

Ah but don’t forget, you have to correct for more users per network connection in those large polygamist compounds, so the numbers are probably misleading.
#42 Mark Francis
February 27, 2009

Progressives get more sex, and make their own porn, thus need to purchase less?
#43 PZ Myers
February 27, 2009

Be careful. Montana is like, one day driver from Morris.

Yeah, but we’ve got the Dakotas as a buffer. They’ll succumb to boredom before they get here.

(Cue hate mail from the Dakotas now.)
#44 Dave
February 27, 2009

Actually, I have noticed that a significant number of porn actresses wear cross necklaces. It’s very distracting.
#45 Andrew
February 27, 2009

#27

If you read the linked press release, you’ll see they did control for different rates of broadband access.
#46 One Eyed Jack
February 27, 2009

This sounds completely reasonable. I expect a positive correlation between conservatism/religion and pornography. The more you forbid something, the greater its appeal.
#47 Son of a preacher man
February 27, 2009

The cross necklaces make me nostalgic. When I was in high school the youth group girls were the easyest lays. Only me? Hmmm. Well if you are having trouble getting some… go to church. And don’t forget… scientific reseach proves that the promise ring girls are more likely to let you in the back door.
#48 Slaughter
February 27, 2009

BAllnJ at #25: “That helps explain the appeal of Sarah Palin.”

Ahhh, the VPILF candidate.

Great, and just last night I had to explain to my wife what “MILFy” when it came up on “The Daily Show.”
#49 Bryan
February 27, 2009

When I commented on this trend to the fellow grads in my office (Montana State) the consensus was that Montana must not have made the transition to the internet. Which led to jokes about “hard” copies.
#50 10channel
February 27, 2009

Now, some people say that porn causes people to be misogynistic. This is actually evidence that it is the other way around: that misogyny causes porn, but porn itself is harmless. Not really good evidence, but at least evidence regardless.
#51 PixelFish
February 27, 2009

I’m curious as to how all the Mormons are consuming the porn. See, Mormon men are statistically less likely to get almost every single form of cancer EXCEPT prostate. There, they rank above national average. Probably because masturbation is supposed to help lower the risk for prostate cancer and other prostate problems, and they’re told its wrong. (BTW, I had a friend get sent home from his mission in Norway early because he got a super huge prostate problem. His doctor in Norway told him to masturbate more as part of his treatment and when he told us–I was still Mormon at the time–the story, we all chuckled over those crazy, immoral European doctors and their whacky medical ideas. Yeah, seems real crazy over a decade later.) So maybe some Mormons are consuming the porn, but not whacking off. Hrm.

Mormons: They’re doing porn wrong.

Also: You CAN drink in SLC. (There are several microbrewerys too.) SLC and Utah in general aren’t dry. They’re merely diluted.
#52 PZ Myers
February 27, 2009

Oh, man, can you drink in SLC. There are all these silly formalities that don’t interfere at all, but the bottom line is that you can buy mini-bottles of alcohol and bring them with you into restaurants. It meant you actually drank more than if you were buying it by the glass.
#53 hje
February 27, 2009

Corn pone seeks porn.
#54 Endor
February 27, 2009

“I highly suggest you watch some porn with your other person. ”

If it’s the stuff we made, absolutely. But I can’t think of anything more boring and anti-educational than watching studio-produced porn. Been there, tried it, bored to freaking tears. What’s to enjoy about watching guys who clearly don’t know what they’re doing to women who are faking it? Snore!
#55 PixelFish
February 27, 2009

Also, the person upthread who seems to be imagining Utah as very rural is under a misapprehension. Perhaps 90 percent of Utah’s population lives in a very dense urban corridor radiating north and south from SLC. It’s about 150 miles long, and most folks live in the valleys strung out along this corridor. Yes, they have broadband access.
#56 JimC
February 27, 2009

I suspect you’ll find a higher than average number of atheists doing the actual acts.

Actually when you see and read interviews with many of them the opposite is more often than not true.
#57 Kassul
February 27, 2009

PixelFish @ #51
I need to get going, so I don’t have time to look up any good research articles to support my position, but I was of the impression that the masturbation x prostate cancer relationship was U shaped.

Low/no masturbation? Higher risk for prostate cancer.
Moderate masturbation? Lower risk.
Fapping two times per day? Back to moderate/high risk.

Again, this is stuff that I can’t immediately back up and the article that I remember getting this from was published ages ago so perhaps it’s totally off.
#58 mothra
February 27, 2009

Montana is to New Zealand as Cows are to . . . .

@PZ. We of the Dakotas are PROUD of our role as buffer. We’ve kept slavery out of Canada, Mormons out of Iowa, longshoremen out of Wyoming and Polar bears out of Nebraska.
#59 Endor
February 27, 2009

“some people say that porn causes people to be misogynistic. This is actually evidence that it is the other way around: that misogyny causes porn, but porn itself is harmless.”

Personally, I think its either cyclical or self-reinforcing.
If you’re already a misogynist, then certain types of porn certainly aren’t going change your mind. If you want to be convinced of something, you’ll find evidence of it anywhere.

Of course, I could see how the nastier stuff could serious warp the view and understanding of sex in younger people. If you get no real education on the subject and internet porn is your only teacher – yikes. bad lays and harm straight ahead.
#60 MrArboc
February 27, 2009

Uneducated people don’t understand science, and they don’t realize that they can get all the porn thay can possibly use for free…
#61 Son of a preacher man
February 27, 2009

Here it is, the counter-apolagetic for the argument from bananas. And yes, this is porn, and woman stuff a peeled banana in her ******. Enjoy. I did. And have a chuckle at the expense of Kent Hovind.

http://ptmovies1.petiteteenager.com/4/ftvbanan/
#62 Nangleator
February 27, 2009

Son of a… @ 47: “…scientific reseach proves that the promise ring girls are more likely to let you in the back door.”

Blasphemer! It’s not your false god Science! It’s fervent prayer that lets us… erm… slip through the cracks, as it were.

Hmmm. Makes me wonder about the Virgin Mary and how she stayed virginal…
#63 rob
February 27, 2009

it makes sense to me. who would want to have sex with a republican? all those sex starved right wingers have needs, but they can’t get them fulfilled without a credit card and broadband.
#64 Mike in Ontario, NY
February 27, 2009

Dave @ 44:
Don’t forget girls in catholic school uniforms! Zappa hit it on the head.
Son @ 47
Now that you mention it, I got WAY more action in one week of bible camp than I did the entire rest of the summer. My parents couldn’t figure out why I went with trepidation the first year, but with great enthusiasm the following year! And no, I wasn’t a counselor…
#65 eddie
February 27, 2009

SciBlogs is my porn!
Now y’all feel the need of a (cold) shower. ;�)
#66 Tulse
February 27, 2009

I have noticed that a significant number of porn actresses wear cross necklaces. It’s very distracting.

Does that include the ones in the nun’s habits?
#67 Chayanov
February 27, 2009

Oh, man, can you drink in SLC. There are all these silly formalities that don’t interfere at all, but the bottom line is that you can buy mini-bottles of alcohol and bring them with you into restaurants. It meant you actually drank more than if you were buying it by the glass.

When I was in SLC for an archaeology conference, I stayed in the student hotel, which actually had a bar in it, unlike the conference hotel. The caveat was they only had something like 4 bottles of liquor plus the beer tap. Grad students would come in to order fancy drinks that the bartender had never heard of and didn’t have all the ingredients to make them anyway. On the other hand, ordering a vodka tonic would get you a drink that was more vodka than tonic. The bartender had to ask me if that drink had a garnish in it.
#68 Alice
February 27, 2009

Most mental health professionals would agree users of pornography tend to have immature emotional capacity so they prefer child like fantasy to adult reality. That makes sense since the most people who use porn also buy into the child like fantasies of organized religion. Small minds do small things.
#69 Son of a preacher man
February 27, 2009

I guess that explains why I like animated porn so much.
#70 Glen Davidson
February 27, 2009

Just imagine how slow PCs and the internet would be if the porn industry wasn’t around to push bandwidth and processing power to its limits.

Likewise with the virus and adware industries.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
#71 Kitty'sBitch
February 27, 2009

Alice
“Most mental health professionals would agree users of pornography tend to have immature emotional capacity so they prefer child like fantasy to adult reality.”

I’m rubber and you’re glue.
#72 Rob
February 27, 2009

I have a challenge for you PZ. Since you’ve offended a few states already in this thread, how about going for all of them?
#73 Mark
February 27, 2009

This is so predictable.

People who are immersed in a fantasy about a tribal Middle Eastern culture’s sky god, immortal beings, ‘sin’ being transmitted by people they don’t know, etc., paying for more of the same – only this time it’s sexual fantasy.

Did NO ONE except me see this coming (er…)?
#74 Endor
February 27, 2009

“Most mental health professionals would agree users of pornography tend to have immature emotional capacity so they prefer child like fantasy to adult reality.”

Any links or anything to support this? I guess it could conceivably be true about obsessive porn users- those that eschew actual human contact in favor of porn, but it seems absurdly heavy-handed as a blanket condemnation of ALL porn users.
#75 Tim C
February 27, 2009

@#20

That’s all wrong. The only difference is that Republicans pay for their Internet porn.

Of course they do. They are fiscally responsible after all. *SMILE*
#76 Christi
February 27, 2009

I wish the old horny Mormon men here in my office would purchase some porn. Then might actually start talking to my face….
#77 Kitty'sBitch
February 27, 2009

Christi
The Horny Mormons would be an awesome band name.
#78 Cuttlefish, OM
February 27, 2009

I just come here, for the Friday Cephalopod.
#79 Kitty'sBitch
February 27, 2009

Cuttlefish
Aren’t the Friday cephalopods kinda like porn for a cuttlefish?
#80 catgirl
February 27, 2009

OK, I have 2 explanations:

1) It’s the women in Utah who are buying porn, because it’s impossible for one man to satisfy 10 women and those ladies need some outlet. Is there any data on what kind of porn was bought?

2) Liberals look at as much porn as conservatives, but are simply smart enough to get it without paying.
#81 Qwerty
February 27, 2009

BDC @ 1 says: “There’s free porn everywhere. So much so it’s putting a hurting on the Porn industry.”

This is true as I heard on the radio that Playboy, the blue chip of the porn industry, is laying off people (instead of laying on them, huh) and may cease publication due to losses. Now that would be the end of an era.
#82 Bob King
February 27, 2009

Way back when, I used to run a porn review site. In other words, my job was to look at porn, know the audiences, to some degree understand the culture, etc. All pre 9/11.

Anyway, first, as jobs that don’t suck particularly well go – it was no worse than working at Mc. Donald’s. But when I realized that looking at nekked women was becoming a chore to be avoided I really had to walk away.

However, there are a number of demographics within porn, and the “niche porn” is particularly revealing of certain issues people have.

And some are just bizarre. As in – on what basis can you even CALL this “pornography?”

There’s something called “balloon fetish” – in which completely dressed women publicly inflate latex baloons until they – pop!

In the hardcore footage – they sit on the baloon. Until it pops. They go Eek!

No, really.

On the other hand, one of the reasons I think porn should not be regulated – and the reason why it is so repressed – is that the porn that most closely portrays “normal” sexual relationships tend to go for the “money shot” via a path of reducto ad absurdem that reveals deep-seated misogyny, sadism, self and other-loathing and great big wide swathes of racism.

I have a t-shirt that sums up my reaction people who think their perversions are normal and people who try to portray their strange obsessions as “sexy.” It says: “I don’t know what’s playing in the theater of your mind, but I bet the floor is sticky.” (link: http://www.zazzle.com/the_theater_of_your_mind_dark_tee_tshirt-235924574859960880 – or you could just make your own.)

By the way, it translates very directly to politics. In fact, the more depraved a person’s private sexual fantasies, the more likely they are to project those depravities on others as working assumptions for their “real” motivations. If only there was a remote control for turning off the old porn tapes in the heads of Social Conservatives…

Anyway I could tell, the “Adult Community” was, and no doubt still is pretty much a cross section of society.

But, if the product or site was clearly intended to provoke both arousal and subsequent self-loathing… it was, more often than not, created by a social conservative – with a complete collection of John Noman’s Gor novels.
#83 Scott S
February 27, 2009

I must say, we Montanans are just smart enough to use the free porn. . .

Though cows are nice too.
#84 SEF
February 27, 2009

@ #23

Check to see what the producers of porn believe. I suspect you’ll find a higher than average number of atheists doing the actual acts.

Does porn bother with having enough of a plot that it’s possible to tell what the religion (or lack thereof) of the characters is supposed to be?
#85 Cris
February 27, 2009

As a Montana resident, I suggest that our low per capita porn consumption is directly related to the limited availability of broadband. Pulling down HD smut over dialup is like watching a burlesque show through a crack in the fence.
#86 DGKnipfer
February 27, 2009

I love the unsupported conclusion you’ve pulled out of nowhere PZ. It could just as easily be that the few more open minded individuals trapped in Godsville Utah are making up for the lack of local access to porn imposed upon them by the Utah moral majority ?. Then again, if you drive I-80 from Wyoming to Nevada you will notice that the adult book stores and casinos are all at the first exit outside Utah. You can’t miss them. The billboards are HUGE!!!
#87 Nangleator
February 27, 2009

Male sex drive tends to act like a flowing river. It has to keep flowing. Dam it up completely, and eventually you’ll have it spilling out in different ways, in odd directions. Damaging floods in places you’d never predict.

Yah. The balloon fetish. At least that doesn’t involve windowless vans and shallow graves.
#88 Crystal D.
February 27, 2009

They’re just doing research to prove that there aren’t any transitional pornos.
#89 Kitty'sBitch
February 27, 2009

Is masturbating to porn a sin if your wife is the star of the porn?

I’m asking for a friend.
#90 Tulse
February 27, 2009

I suspect you’ll find a higher than average number of atheists doing the actual acts.

The women seem to be very religious, as they almost always call out God’s name at some point…
#91 Otto
February 27, 2009

Porn?
That’s what the internet is for:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5430343841227974645
#92 Kitty'sBitch
February 27, 2009

Tulse
Win!!
#93 OneHandClapping
February 27, 2009

@ Kitty’sBitch #89:

An accurate answer will require a great deal more research which will require a subject matter expert. Many of these experts are in this very forum.
#94 Kitty'sBitch
February 27, 2009

OneHandClapping #93
You forgot to put quote marks around the word “research”.
#95 OneHandClapping
February 27, 2009

Sorry, that’s what I get for typing with one hand…

The other one is clapping, duh.
#96 tony
February 27, 2009

Bob King #82 re: Money shot.

I have no idea why the money shot is supposed to be sexy. Likewise, watching a guy get a blowjob. turns. me. off. (Also turns my wife off, as it happens)Also – any porn that dwells more on the guy’s dick than on the woman is (IMHO) unappealing.

Is such porn purchased by penis lovers?

I’ve never actually seen any gay porn, so I have no idea if the money shot is any more appealing to gay men. I can only assume the dick-laden shots are more appealing.

It’s not something that I’ve every actually discussed with my gay buddies – go figure! Anyone care to enlighten me?
#97 OneHandFapping
February 27, 2009

I’m just as surprised as the commenter at #1.

You can BUY porn?

What’s next? Selling water to people?

Or how about selling people AIR? That’s so stupid, I bet Ben Stein would endorse it.
#98 rob
February 27, 2009

i know correlation doesn’t imply causation. i am just asking, you know, does porn cause republicanism?
#99 Tulse
February 27, 2009

Porn? That’s what the internet is for:

To get all nitpicky, the titular song in that link is actually from the delightfully profane Broadway musical Avenue Q.
#100 Walton
February 27, 2009

ennui: I think we should toss the conversation to our resident expert–What say you, Walton?

Believe me, I am not an expert on porn.
#101 Patricia, OM
February 27, 2009

You could be if you dropped your poker fetish.
#102 Bill Dauphin
February 27, 2009

The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users…

Aside from the “horny Mormons” aspect, this strikes me as a shockingly low number: 5.47 subscriptions per 1000 users? And given that some folks undoubtedly subscribe to more than one site, that suggests that less than 0.5 percent of internet users buy porn, even in the state with the highest rate. Really? Even the horniest of us are that disinterested in porn? I find that hard to believe. For comparison, I thought something like 7 to 10 percent of hotel guests order porn from hotel pay-per-view systems.

Rev BDC, your question @1 is equivalent to asking why anyone pays for cable TV when there’s so much free YouTube out there: In smut, just like in anything else, sometimes you get what you pay for. Don’t ask me how I know this [grin], but there is such a thing as high-quality, well crafted (maybe even artistic) adult entertainment, and you don’t get that for free.
#103 Endor
February 27, 2009

“have no idea why the money shot is supposed to be sexy. ”

I don’t think it’s about Teh Sexxxay so much as it is proof that the viewer is getting what he paid for – a vid (or whathaveyou) of a real sex act.
#104 Otto
February 27, 2009

Tulse/#99:
To get all nitpicky, the titular song in that link is actually from the delightfully profane Broadway musical Avenue Q.

Quite right and a great show it is.
Thanks for the reminder.
#105 'Tis Himself
February 27, 2009

Otto #91

Porn? That’s what the internet is for:

You beat me to it.
#106 Marcus J. Ranum
February 27, 2009

So much for “community standards”

I’d say it just got a lot harder to prosecute anyone based on ‘indecency’. Yay!
#107 Kassul
February 27, 2009

errr, Bill Dauphin @ #102, I’m not sure how to break this to you, but pretty much any porn you can buy you can find for free online.

Even the “high-quality, well crafted (maybe even artistic) adult entertainment” stuff is out there in the form of .torrents and rapidshare/megupload/filefront/upload.to/sharebee/emule/etc/etc/etc.

One can download whole DVDs, blu-ray rips, individual scenes if like some of the stuff on that DVD but not others, etc.

It might not be released with a creative commons license, but it’s out there the exact same way that new movies from hollywood are. Plus the interwebs has lots of obscure stuff that you could never hope to find at your local smut shop. Stuff that people HAVE released for free after making themselves.

If you’re opposed to piracy I could understand paying for porn to get access to certain types of stuff, but if you don’t mind some illicit downloading to go with your videos of illicit sexual escapades, it’s all out there. All of it.
#108 Bill Dauphin
February 27, 2009

Walton:

Believe me, I am not an expert on porn.

You mean you didn’t check out those references I gave you sometime back? I’m genuinely disappointed.
#109 www.10ch.org
February 27, 2009

“Check to see what the producers of porn believe. I suspect you’ll find a higher than average number of atheists doing the actual acts.”
They’re all hypocrites. After all, porn is not supposed to be meaningful, so if it goes against their beliefs, then it doesn’t matter, because the porn is meaningless anyways, and at least it gets them money. That is why I stay far away from commercial pornography.
#110 Tulse
February 27, 2009

less than 0.5 percent of internet users buy porn, even in the state with the highest rate. Really? Even the horniest of us are that disinterested in porn?

Not disinterested, just clever enough (and not picky enough) to find the free stuff.

there is such a thing as high-quality, well crafted (maybe even artistic) adult entertainment, and you don’t get that for free.

Given the data above, my guess is that about 0.5% of porn consumers care about such things.
#111 TXCHL Instructor
February 27, 2009

People pay for porn?

Why?
—
http://www.chl-tx.com
#112 Patricia, OM
February 27, 2009

Bill, I think we’re wasting our time on that young feller. He’s got no gumtion.
#113 Marcus J. Ranum
February 27, 2009

Plus the interwebs has lots of obscure stuff that you could never hope to find at your local smut shop.

My all-time favorite was the live-action smurf sex porn some witty couple produced. I mean, that’s an instant classic. It’s inspirational. Really.

In order to prove that I am one of those “moral atheists” I pay for my porn. I know a couple people in the industry and they work hard and deserve to get paychecks just like everyone else.
#114 Son of a preacher man
February 27, 2009

The only porn I pay for are those wonderful girl gone wild videos. And its not for the flashing. They often have these girl on girl scenes that are fantastic. You can take high quality, well crafty, artsy porn and flush it. I like the stuff that makes God cry.
#115 Scott from Oregon
February 27, 2009

Even more interesting is the amount of porn searches coming out of places like Saudi Arabia.
#116 kamaka
February 27, 2009

Here’s your hate mail from the Dakotas, PZ

I woke up to -38 F. this winter and asked myself “Am I stupid? Why am I living here? I could die taking out the garbage!”

Forty below keeps the riff-raff out, indeed.
#117 AF_Comm_Guy
February 27, 2009

I am currently stationed here in Utah and I have to say these are some of the most uptight yet weirdly perverted people I have ever seen. Japan is kind of similar but in a funny way. Here it is just plain creepy. The couples are encouraged to multiply and multiply even if the husband can’t afford to take care of the family. After a few years and four or five kids in the brood the husband is working himself into the ground for about 80 hours a week and doesn’t have time to procreate with his wife much anymore yet the kids still keep coming. A lot of the Mormons here look strangely alike even though they are not related. It comes from the wives wanting some attention while the kids are at school so they are out and about looking for action while the hubby works a crappy job someplace. And the hits just keep on coming…so to speak.
#118 Anna in PDX
February 27, 2009

Scott: I used to live in Egypt and Google had some method of counting hits by country. Egypt won for searches on “sex” and several other similar terms. Amazing what conservative society that discourages dating but insists that you can’t marry until you can buy a house and furniture, will do to frustrated teenagers. I just pitied everyone there. More than half the population are teenagers.
#119 Marcus J. Ranum
February 27, 2009

Scott from Oregon writes:
Even more interesting is the amount of porn searches coming out of places like Saudi Arabia.

You’re not kidding. I used to have a photography gallery of some of my art nudes on my website (I took it down because of the load on my server!) so I had all the server logs and referrer information. All I can say was that I was hugely popular in the islamic world.

I didn’t separate geography out by image, unfortunately, so I can’t tell you if the hot data was the regular figure stuff or the fetishy stuff of pretty girls wearing cat-ears, bell-collars, and tails…

Based on my personal experience with forbidden fruit, I sincerely hope that certain things stay “naughty” for a while. Otherwise it’d be a shame to lose the thrill of occasionally glimpsing a girl’s ankle or the back of her neck or … (sigh)

Joking aside, those of us who are older get a tremendous advantage. As societies get over their abrahamic silliness and get more comfortable with exposing skin and whatnot, it’s just great goodness to us. I remember when it was “bare midriff” fashion season – I had to stay out of the malls because I kept walking into things when the teen-agers went by.

I always wondered about kids who grow up around topless beaches. Think of the whole big thrill that they’re missing out on.
#120 bastion of sass
February 27, 2009

There’s an obvious explanation for the porn buying
patterns:

The family values folks are trying to snatch up all the porn they can, to keep it out of the hands of the rest of us!

They’re sacrificing part of their non-tithed money to pay for porn–which I’m sure they don’t even take the tiniest eyes-half-shut peek at–so it’s unavailable for viewing by the depraved or the innocent but soon-to-be-depraved.

Such a great way to score points with God and buy into a better location in heaven.
#121 Helioprogenus
February 27, 2009

The question as stated numerous times is why are people purchasing porn? With free access on the internet, all that these findings tell us is that people in the most conservative states just don’t know where to get free porn. I know as a consumer, I do my fair share to keep Hawaii as one of the top productive states, but the last time I actually purchased something was probably in high school, over 10 years ago.

One thing that doesn’t change is the constant paranoia of getting caught. At first, it’s just parents, then your girlfriends, then your wife and children. Thus, the days of freely watching two lesbians with real breasts rubbing up against each other pretending that there’s no camera/video in their presence are rare and special.
#122 Norman Doering
February 27, 2009

SEF asked:

Does porn bother with having enough of a plot that it’s possible to tell what the religion (or lack thereof) of the characters is supposed to be?

Nope, but the three major magazine publishers, Hugh Hefner, Bob Guccione and Larry Flynt have all said they were atheistic to some degree and the porn movie awards shows I’ve seen have delved in a lot of playful blasphemy, stripping nuns, cross dildos… etc. as part of the entertainment between awards.
#123 AdamK
February 27, 2009

“Consumers” of porn? You’re supposed to consume it? I’ve been doing it wrong.
#124 michael J
February 27, 2009

#3 – That was my first thought as well
#125 Marcus J. Ranum
February 27, 2009

Helioprogenus asks:
The question as stated numerous times is why are people purchasing porn?

A lot of the “free” stuff is ripped off. Like the “free” music. I think of porn as just another form of entertainment and, as such, I pay for what I enjoy. As a creative person who has made a living by selling copyright-protected material (specifically software) I’d be pretty hypocritical to want people to pay for my software, but pirate music or porn, no?

The way I see it, being willing to pay a bit for my porn helps encourage a market for it.

My views are somewhat colored by the fact that I get 2 or 3 emails a month about some of my photography (intended as amusement/hobby) showing up on some pay site as “free porn”. While I suppose I don’t mind if some eastern european malware downloader makes a few bucks off my hard work, it’d be nice to have the money, myself, so I could keep hiring models and paying for storage, etc, and create more art for people to enjoy. Free is often the enemy of quality, accidentally or deliberately.

When the barriers to publishing in an area drop (something I support, in general) the quality does, as well, because the notion of “fitness” changes from “will people pay for it?” to “how much can we shovel out the door in order to get eyeballs for banner-clicks?” Since it still costs a lot to make a movie (for example) there is still a barrier to the entry of tons of shovel-ware in that area. But, if you look at youtube, there’s – well – millions of individually searchable pieces of dreck with a few nuggets here and there.

It’s a personal preference, but by sticking with media where there’s a feedback loop between the producer and the consumer, I hope I’ll continue to be regaled with the kind of stuff I like, rather than easy to churn out stuff produced by talentless crank-turners. That applies to movies, porn, music, and literature.
#126 Brett T
February 27, 2009

I am typing from Utah…Almost everything I have read about Utah in these comments annoys me…
You can Drink in Utah- You just have to jump through some hoops and think ahead if you want to do so publicly…
Ah screw it- this is too trivial to type about….
#127 Bill Dauphin
February 27, 2009

Kassul (@107):

errr, Bill Dauphin @ #102, I’m not sure how to break this to you, but pretty much any porn you can buy you can find for free online.

You’re confusing free with stolen. I don’t steal books or music or movies; why would I steal porn? Do you somehow think that the folks who perform in, shoot, edit, and produce adult content have less right to get paid for their work than those who work in other genres or media? It might surprise you, but at least some of the people who make sexually explicit art are extremely proud of their work; I, personally, would feel ashamed to rip them off.
#128 Kate
February 27, 2009

Bill Dauphin, you’re getting your panties in a bunch over nothing. Porn is like sports: There are many who do it for the money, but there are just as many if not more who do it for free, just for the thrill.
#129 Kassul
February 27, 2009

Bill @ #127
I also said this(with additional emphasis added):
If you’re opposed to piracy I could understand paying for porn to get access to certain types of stuff, but if you don’t mind some illicit downloading to go with your videos of illicit sexual escapades, it’s all out there. All of it.

As I said, I can understand paying for porn if you want to support the porn industry financially. I have given some money to one company who produce some very interesting and somewhat unusual stuff(not balloons). But I very highly doubt that’s the primary motivation for the porn being viewed in the article above.

I also take issue with the use of the term “stolen” which is certainly not what’s happening here. Theft means that the person being stolen from is deprived of a good which need not be the case here. Copyright infringement may well be immoral in many circumstances, but that doesn’t make it theft anymore than driving in excess of the speed limit is theft.
#130 Rrr
February 27, 2009

#119

I always wondered about kids who grow up around topless beaches. Think of the whole big thrill that they’re missing out on.

Meh, I like not automatically associating naked skin with sex. It doesn’t mean people can’t easily turn me on, it’s just more behavior triggered rather than skin triggered.

Nude female/male walking about minding their own business? Not automatically sexually stimulating.
Naked/fully clad female/male (who matches my criteria for a potential partner, whether one night stand or longterm relationship) e.g. giving me inviting looks and touching their own bodies or in other ways making me more focused on what could be done to them sexually? Woohoo!

(I haven’t grown up around topless beaches, I did however hit the science books, including human biology, at a very early age, as well as being used to seeing other humans naked in changing rooms/communal showers, and for art. Plus when puberty finally hit I watched a large quantity of mainstream porn and grew bored with most of it within a few years. Wasn’t real enough/good enough.)
#131 Twin-Skies
February 27, 2009

Utah

Hypocrisy: Yur doin it right!
#132 Norman Doering
February 27, 2009

Rrr wrote:

I watched a large quantity of mainstream porn and grew bored with most of it within a few years. Wasn’t real enough/good enough.

It would seem the porn industry owes religion and its repressive sexual mores a lot for the customers it makes for them.
#133 Primewonk
February 27, 2009

Scott wrote “I must say, we Montanans are just smart enough to use the free porn. . .

Though cows are nice too.”

Montana – where men are men, and sheep are scared.
#134 Bill Dauphin
February 27, 2009

Kassul:

I also said this(with additional emphasis added): If you’re opposed to piracy…

I didn’t miss that; I was answering it (and fairly clearly, I thought).

I also take issue with the use of the term “stolen” which is certainly not what’s happening here.

Bullshit. I think we go overboard with some aspects of intellectual property law, but downloading an illicitly ripped DVD or Blu-Ray movie or CD is stealing just as surely as if you’d shoplifted the items from your local Wal-Mart (or your local porn shop).

Theft means that the person being stolen from is deprived of a good which need not be the case here.

You are depriving the creators and owners of those work of a “good”: The money they had every reasonable expectation — and legal right — to in compensation for their work. JOOC, do you also think it’s perfectly acceptable to sneak into theatres and sporting events without paying? To tap into the cable company’s lines without paying? In those cases, as well, you’re not depriving anyone of any tangible object… but you are taking for free, and without permission, services that others are legitimately trying to sell.

BTW, this…

…if you don’t mind some illicit downloading to go with your videos of illicit sexual escapades… [my emphasis]

…seems to suggest that somehow the “illicit” nature of the content somehow justifies your illicit method of obtaining it. If that’s not what you meant, forgive me.. but if it is what you meant, that’s bullshit, too. I would no more steal a copy of Lady Chatterly’s Lover from my local Borders than I would Your Inner Fish.

Kate:

Bill Dauphin, you’re getting your panties in a bunch…

Sorry, not my kink! ;^)

Porn is like sports: There are many who do it for the money, but there are just as many if not more who do it for free, just for the thrill.

Sure. And I was answering the “why pay for what you can get for free” question on the basis of explaining why I pay to see the Red Sox play even though I could watch as much Little League as I pleased for free. It turned out, however, that Kassul (along with some others, I fear) was really asking “why pay to watch the Red Sox when it’s easy to sneak into Fenway Park for free.” That, IMHO, is a whole ‘nother question.
#135 Tulse
February 27, 2009

You’re confusing free with stolen.

There’s actually a lot that is free on rather well-known sites, and is used for promotion of paid sites.

At least, so I’ve been led to understand…by a friend…
#136 Valor Phoenix
February 27, 2009

102 – “Aside from the “horny Mormons” aspect, this strikes me as a shockingly low number: 5.47 subscriptions per 1000 users? And given that some folks undoubtedly subscribe to more than one site, that suggests that less than 0.5 percent of internet users buy porn, even in the state with the highest rate.”

I know this is a porn related post, but read the article. They took into account broadband by counting subscriptions per 1000 broadband users. Likewise this is just the data from a single ten site porn company.

As for why subscribe? About the same reason as coming to this blog, to get all the juicy stuff in one convenient place. Republicans are also less tech savvy in general, so that doesn’t help in tracking down the free stuff.
#137 dean
February 27, 2009

From Larry the Cable Guy:

“Ever see your folks having sex? I did. I tell you what, I ain’t never going to that web site agin.”
#138 Phil E. Drifter
February 27, 2009

Who the hell *pays* for pr0n?! It’s free **ALL OVER THE PLACE** online!
#139 Simon George
February 27, 2009

People pay for porn?!
#140 MikeyM
February 27, 2009

People keep saying how easy it is to find free porn, but rarely say exactly where. It’s as frustrating as those news reports that claim how much crack is sold on street corners, but never say which corners!
#141 Helioprogenus
February 27, 2009

@ #125 MarcusRanum

Although you make a good point about quality dropping off with the overload of free availability, I can’t say that when I’m surfing through the nether regions of that explicitly amazing lesbian-on-lesbian porn, I’m looking for quality. I’m not trying to find an oscar nominee here, but just something that reaches those carnal regions of our minds. It’s probably the same reason paleolithic humans carved those Venus figurines. Here we are, trying to determine their cultural content, for all we know, they can be the stone age equivalent of pornography. One day, they will find two carved women in compromising positions and you know the anthropologists will be beating their heads senseless (pun intended) trying to determine what further cultural context to draw from that.

But I digress, I do appreciate your position, and the world needs those who stand up to justice, and actually pay for decent porn, yet, there are those of us who don’t mind purchasing a hammer at Walmart instead of The Home Depot. Sure sometimes, for really important jobs, perhaps the carbon-fiber hammer with the comfort grip is the best idea. To avoid taking the analogy too far, it’s like introducing porn to your girlfriend. You don’t want to show her the low quality raunchy things that may turn her off, but perhaps something of expensive caliber, perhaps with decent cinematography. When it comes to porn, there’s variety of so many different levels of quality that it’s up to the consumer to decide.

Distancing oneself from porn however, I think absolutely differently when it comes to music. In this, there truly is a quality vs. quantity issue, and the more access people have for allowing their music to reach mass audiences, the lower the quality drops. Yet, this trade-off is required for a given society to function efficiently. If only those artists of the highest caliber are allowed to release records, than very few records get released, people have little variable exposure. It’s another completely different thing to find a diamond in a manure processing factory. That is the job of the consumer when there’s an increase in the choices. Sure, quality suffers in direct proportion with ease of production and release, but the choices increase, and a natural balance is eventually found between quality and quantity.
#142 Jors
February 27, 2009

To be fair, doesn’t this just reflect the fact that those states are the most Internet-unsavvy? Anyone who knows the first thing about the Internet does not pay for porn. But if you’re old and/or computer illiterate, you might come across a site and figure you have to pay see the goodies.
#143 anti-supernaturalist
February 27, 2009

? Better to pluck out thine eye . . . ?

No one knows the voluptuous pain of rigorism better than sexual involutes. They are constantly tormented by ?sin? in their ?members? ? each true believer a do-it-to-yourself Marquis de Sade.

The xian ephebe, created both innocent and indescribably vile at once, is a pedophile?s heartthrob. (The genital area is after all a priestly play ground.)

Lolita was created by so-called ?Saint? Paul infected by visions of yummy Mediterranean dream girls, Isis of Egypt and Diana of Ephesus, a multi-breasted favorite closer to home. (It really was more fun to be a pagan.)

Xianity is pornography. Paul its primo pimp.
#144 AnthonyK
February 27, 2009

I wonder how many million pints of sperm have been spilled from visions of the Virgin Mary?
None of mine though, I hasten to add.
But if I could have fucked God’s mum, I would have.
#145 'Tis Himself
February 27, 2009

But if I could have fucked God’s mum, I would have.

Isn’t she just a little old for you?
#146 Patricia, OM
February 27, 2009

AnthonyK – You saucy turnip. Gawd’s mum has a name, it’s Sophia. Gawd’s wife has a name, it’s Ashera.

Now stop with the nameless sex, and get on with it.
You icky boys, the next thing we know you’ll volunteer to violate Diana of Ephesus, the multi-breasted. Regular Priapus aren’t you?! *smirk*
#147 AF_Comm_Guy
February 27, 2009

Was it something I said? I made a comment somewhere around #17 or so about Mormons being closet perverts and now my comment is gone. I know my comment can’t be nearly as bad as a lot of the stuff I’m seeing here.
#148 AF_Comm_Guy
February 27, 2009

Never mind. It was at 117, not 17. I’m an idiot. Time to go drink heavily.

Odd thing about buying booze. If I want a normal strength beer, I have to buy it on base and it is labeled “Strong Beer.” Off base the beer is weak and only about 3.2%. The beer manufacturers have to brew a different blend in order to sell it here in Utah. Weird.
#149 Gene
February 27, 2009

What is the state where a majority disagreed with the statement “I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage.” I think that’s where I want to live…
#150 Norman Doering
February 27, 2009

MikeyM wrote:

People keep saying how easy it is to find free porn, but rarely say exactly where. It’s as frustrating as those news reports that claim how much crack is sold on street corners, but never say which corners!

Do you not know how to use Google?

Just type in the name of your favorite type of porn and get a list of a few thousand sites featuring it.

I’d give you some of my links but unless you know who Casey James or Milena Velba are you probably wouldn’t be interested.
#151 Facilis
February 27, 2009

Truns out self described “atheists and skeptics” do watch way more pr0n than evangelicals.
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrowPreview&BarnaUpdateID=315
(If I denied absolute morality like people here I would probably watch too)
Does this remind anyone here of that scene in “Fireproof” where Kirk Cameron was on the internet ?
#152 Barb
February 27, 2009

One of the differences in porn purchases by region may have to do with more money in the hands of youth for some groups. It didn’t look as though the differences were very great. Overall, however, it would seem that porn has saturated our culture and is a huge addiction for many.

Are any prisons allowing porn purchase? not with cards, I would guess. It is interesting the difference between Utah and Montana. I might say, with a wink, that Christians do better with temptation than do Mormons!

Here’s another theory –if it were true that Christian cultures struggle with porn addiction more than non-Christian cultures (which I don’t believe for people with computers and porn access) — if it were true, we could explain it by saying that morally-raised youth are VERY eager to “have and to hold” –to experience sex –to get married even –and for them, even the allowed, normal marital relationship seems like “forbidden fruit” –always amazing that God allows such pleasure. And thus, they may be fascinated if porn comes their way, especially before the normal outlet of marriage. And I believe it is a very corruptive, damaging influence.

On the other hand, liberals and those who raised themselves as kids, without any moral or religious upbringing, have been so over exposed to nudity in their world, so sexually experienced, so uninhibited in sex, that THEIR inclination is toward the perverse, the abnormal. They can’t even get aroused by anything legitimate, monogamous and normal but want to get into really nasty stuff. And have no desire to marry. Or they want to adulterate and “swing” as married folks.

Also, I surmise that a few more democrats per thousand can’t get credit cards which are needed for internet subscriptions, right?

One might check the stats on computer ownership, also. Do some states have more per 1000 than others –THAT would REALLY explain the difference.
#153 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 27, 2009

Facilis the Fallacious Fool. Barna’s statistics are suspect. Exactly like your reason and logic. Another failure.
#154 Barb
February 27, 2009

151 Facilis –thanks for the link. Very informative. I’m taking that link to my blog.
#155 AnthonyK
February 27, 2009

Barb, or may I call you “Mrs” Barb? I do hope you are not going to use this thread to talk about anal sex this time.
I found your last postings quite upsetting.

Anal sex makes Baby Jesus cry.
#156 Steve_C
February 27, 2009

Facilis’ mom: Facils!! What are you doing up there??? Get off your computer right this instance! I know what you’re doing! You’re going to go blind and grow hair on your palms!!! Dinner is ready!

Facilis: Mom! I wasn’t! I was showing those filthy atheists how immoral they are! I swear!

Facilis runs down the stairs.

Facilis’ mom: Good boy Facilis. Now eat your stew. And pleeeeeze zip up your pants.
#157 chuckgoecke
February 27, 2009

I think the reason for the skewing of the data towards conservative states is related to my philosophy: Only fools PAY for Pron…. which reminds me, My rapid share bill is coming up soon.
#158 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 27, 2009

Barb, here’s something to consider. You are an ignorant apologist for your imaginary and imperfect religion. You are wrong in almost all your thinking, if you can call it that. Maybe you should just consider shutting up. That shows some intelligence on your part.
#159 Valor Phoenix
February 27, 2009

Oh yeah, on the free porn thing, the only place I go to is Kind Girls. It’s a rather nice site that has mostly art quality images of nekkid women from paysites like Met-Art as examples. A good portion of what they host is excellent for artistic reference material, though it depends on the source of the particular photo set.

This text blurb from the website pretty much speaks for itself:

This is a clean site: no pop ups, no blind links, no lies. If you like our site, please tell your friends about us, help us to grow and we will upload more and more erotic photos and videos. We hope you enjoy kindgirls.

Do not forget to have a look at our Photo Archive, now: 48739 photos in 3317 galleries and growing daily.
#160 Steve_C
February 27, 2009

Barb. You’re a fucking twit.
#161 Barb
February 27, 2009

Hi anthony. Sorry to upset you. It upsets me, too. Anytime people are referred to as homophobes or bigots on the subject of gay rights, I will probably remind us of the activities which spread disease –and make Jesus weep –and me, too.
#162 Patricia, OM
February 27, 2009

Barb, shut the fuck up.
#163 AnthonyK
February 27, 2009

Haa ha ha ha ha aha ha ha ah ha ha hahaha, bonk.
Priceless.
Seriously, what are you wearing?
#164 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 27, 2009

Poor Barb, I would call for the men in white to haul her off to the asylum, but that is her husband’s job. He is failing society in not keeping her off the internet.
#165 Barb
February 27, 2009

Steve –Obama would be disappointed in your lack of civility in disagreement.

Nerd 158 –to paraphrase your comment to me, right back atcha! “Nerd, here’s something to consider. You are an ignorant apologist for your imaginary and imperfect views . You are wrong in almost all your thinking, if you can call it that. Maybe you should just consider shutting up. That shows some intelligence on your part.”
#166 DaveL
February 27, 2009

Truns out self described “atheists and skeptics” do watch way more pr0n than evangelicals.

Umm, Facilis, did you read that link?

Researchers asked adults which, if any, of eight behaviors with moral overtones they had engaged in during the past week. The behaviors included exposure to pornography, using profanity in public, gambling, gossiping, engaging in sexual intercourse with someone to whom they were not married, retaliating against someone, getting drunk, and lying.

Gee, you don’t suppose a survey that relies on self-reporting to gauge evangelicals’ use of pornography might suffer from a teensy-weensy little methodological weakness?
#167 AnthonyK
February 27, 2009

No, dammit, Barb, you elusive minx. Here you are on a porn thread. What (apart from anal sex) turns you on?
Research purposes.
#168 Julie Stahlhut
February 27, 2009

Son of a Preacher Man wrote:

When I was in high school the youth group girls were the easyest lays. Only me? Hmmm. Well if you are having trouble getting some… go to church.

That’s funny. In my New England home town in the 1970s, church youth groups weren’t where kids went to have sex. They were where kids went to score weed.
#169 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 27, 2009

Barb, show physical evidence for your imaginary god. We are waiting. So far, you are a huge disappointment. But then, what can one expect from an ignorant godbotting twit?
#170 Wowbagger
February 27, 2009

facilis wrote:

Does this remind anyone here of that scene in “Fireproof” where Kirk Cameron was on the internet?

What – other than head trauma* – would make you even begin to imagine that anyone who posts here would have watched anything that talentless asshat appeared in, let alone a film from the Movies for Good Christian Retards? collection?

Well, except maybe Barb; she probably got all ‘moist for Jesus’ over it.

*_{Which would explain everything else about you as well.}
#171 E.V.
February 27, 2009

Barb thinks buttseks is icky and unnatural but she won’t tell us if she’s ever performed fellatio or had cunnilingus performed on her. So what is sinful and unnatural is arbitrary to Barb.
#172 Ryogam
February 27, 2009

But, according to Ray Comfort, god designed the banana to fit so perfectly into the hand and mouth, thus proving god’s love for us…so, god designed the dick to fit into the anus as a way to show gods love for gays and anally fixated men and women.

If he was so against anal sex, he should have designed the anus more like the nostril or ear. There’s no such thing as nostril sex or ear sex.
#173 AnthonyK
February 27, 2009

Well if you are having trouble getting some… go to church

Too true. More kids get fucked in church than in any other building.

Barb – KY or Vaseline?
#174 Barb
February 27, 2009

What scorners and mockers U R!

Psalm 1, KJV: 1Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

2But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

3And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

4The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.

5Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

6For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

But there is a way out “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” “…whosoever believes in Him (Jesus) shall not perish but have everlasting life.”

NOw THAT’s real, enduring HOPE for CHANGe.
#175 DaveL
February 27, 2009

NOw THAT’s real, enduring HOPE for CHANGe.

Um… is your SHIFT key broken, or is that just your lithium wearing off?
#176 E.V.
February 27, 2009

Praise Jeebus, Hallelujah! Barb can cut and paste scripture. Although the edit on John3:16 is tacky.
#177 Wowbagger
February 27, 2009

Barb wrote:

Nerd, here’s something to consider. You are an ignorant apologist for your imaginary and imperfect views . You are wrong in almost all your thinking, if you can call it that. Maybe you should just consider shutting up. That shows some intelligence on your part.

Barb, do you know what the word ‘imaginary’ means? I know Nerd does.
#178 Patricia, OM
February 27, 2009

Barb you are a coward. State the homophobic christian doctrine right up front, or shut the fuck up.

Disease is a sniveling, simpering, cowards way out. Do you stand behind the Babbles words or not?

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13

Come on Barb, you blog whoring coward.
#179 AnthonyK
February 27, 2009

Yo Barb, ever thought that Jesus takes you to some horrible places?
That’s because………..you’re doing it wrong

You really shouldn’t be here, you know.

You must be so unpopular in real life.

Jesus’ fault – or rather your fault for allowing yourself to slum it in this nest of perverts.

I’m down to just a thong. You?
#180 kamaka
February 27, 2009

What scorners and mockers U R!

Ummm…yeah, we scorn and mock irrational bullshit.

What of it?
#181 Rev. BigDumbChimp
February 27, 2009

Barb did you try the anal-ease or did you go straight for the astro-glide?
#182 E.V.
February 27, 2009

Revised Standard Version, I see. At least she’s not KJV -ething, thining and thouing, but the scorn and mockery talk is a little Quakerish for my taste.
#183 Jim Lund
February 27, 2009

Isn’t Missouri the “Show me!” state?
#184 AnthonyK
February 27, 2009

Barb, Jesus here! Speak in tongues, you gilded whore!
#185 Rev. BigDumbChimp
February 27, 2009

On the other hand, liberals and those who raised themselves as kids, without any moral or religious upbringing, have been so over exposed to nudity in their world, so sexually experienced, so uninhibited in sex, that THEIR inclination is toward the perverse, the abnormal. They can’t even get aroused by anything legitimate, monogamous and normal but want to get into really nasty stuff. And have no desire to marry. Or they want to adulterate and “swing” as married folks

Barb you fucking idiot.

I was raised by a single mother, liberal as it gets. I’m happily married 7 years IN September. I have never strayed from the marriage nor has my wife. Never even had the desire to.

you again clearly have NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
#186 pcarini
February 27, 2009

What scorners and mockers U R!

Bwa ha ha ah! That U R convinced me — the jesus freaks are still in tune with the kids these days…
#187 Son of a preacher man
February 27, 2009

Barb, even though I like watching women dressed like cats and animated women doing all kinds of perverted things together. I still enjoy fucking my wife. I think your argument about porn decreasing enjoyment of normal man and wife relations is a result of not having enough experience in this area.
#188 AnthonyK
February 27, 2009

No, but seriously Barb, when God was handing out religions, you were taking a whizz, right?
#189 Valor Phoenix
February 27, 2009

BTW, just visited the Kind Girls website for the first time in a while and the February 28 photo set for Susann was shocking.

Jesus came back as a hot chick and she’s posing for nekkid photos while walking on water o.O

Wow, and I thought walking on water was unpossible!
#190 Facilis
February 27, 2009

I was raised by a single mother, liberal as it gets. I’m happily married 7 years IN September. I have never strayed from the marriage nor has my wife. Never even had the desire to.

I guess you’re situation isn’t typical.
From BARNA survey

On average, adults who describe themselves as “mostly liberal” on sociopolitical issues were twice as likely as those who describe themselves as “mostly conservative” to participate in activities that conflict with traditional moral perspectives. In particular, liberals were five times more likely to participate in unmarried sex (20% vs. 4%), more than three times as likely to view pornography (30% vs. 8%), more than twice as likely to lie (21% vs. 8) and to get drunk (17% vs. 7%), and twice as likely to engage in retaliation (13% vs. 6%) and gossip (17% vs. 9%).
#191 DaveL
February 27, 2009

Wow, and I thought walking on water was unpossible!

You call it a miracle; here in Michigan we call it “winter”.
#192 E.V.
February 27, 2009

Barb has never used anal-ease or astro-glide nor has her Dr. Hubby seen her naked. Sex is only for procreation only in Barbs world. She’s a cuddler! That’s why Hubby is either a closeted man (hence her hatred for all things gay) or a straight adulterer, or perhaps a eunuch, but there’s no way he’s getting any quality sump’n sump’n from Barb (never EVER in the back door) the prude.
#193 Patricia, OM
February 27, 2009

So Barb, wanna discuss Deuteronomy 28?

How about some disease sweet cheeks? Let’s go.
#194 Son of a preacher man
February 27, 2009

Having gone to church a lot as a result of my fathers proffession I can assure you that conservative Christian girls tend to be whores. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing either. I was greatful.
#195 pcarini
February 27, 2009

I’m sure if Barna had asked about masturbation, he’d only get like 20% among the self-identified Evangelicals. I assume he’s being honest about his results, but you’re confused if you believe they represent reality in any meaningful way.
#196 kamaka
February 27, 2009

Barb

And just what prompts you to visit a porno thread on an atheist weblog anyway? Seriously, what internal misgivings lead you to such a place? It’s not likely you will change any minds here, and you know it.

I strongly suspect you are acting out some unfufilled or repressed sexual desire.
#197 Ryogam
February 27, 2009

Oh, oh, I know this game! Let me try…

Exodus 4

24: And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him (Moses), and sought to kill him.
25: Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
26: So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

God’s Kryptonite? Foreskins.
#198 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 27, 2009

Facilis, Barna is suspect. Without independent verification, Barna is trash. Just like your logic.
#199 Barb
February 27, 2009

Dave L, no. 166 –the self-reporting in the Barna report was anonymous, I’m sure, and the things they confessed were not something they would want to share publically in an evangelical group –though the Bible tells us to confess our sins to one another. Most are content to just confess to the Lord.

There is a wide range of people in the evangelical groups –some who are new converts, some who are raised in truly godly homes, some who are there because their parents made them be there –and some who are there because it is cool in their peer group to be Christian. Some because they found acceptance and friendship in the group –even though their lives are way out there –far from the evangelical mainstream. and most because they, nevertheless, truly believe in Christ and His salvation and resurrection.

someone who has adultery in the last week or two would be a very rare evangelical –probably a real struggler. I’ve known some women friends like that. They so want a man that they fall into temptation –but still come to church every Sunday. Courting couples being intimate would be more common –as the survey says. I told my kids to get married as soon as they wished to be intimate –that it was God’s plan for that sex drive. Thinking you ought to marry the one you have sex with, will certainly make you thoughtful about that first experience. The belief is a deterrent to casual sex –as is chaperonage –at least until kids leave home for school or whatever.

In my family, cursing wasn’t a real temptation because our parents and grandparents didn’t do it. Adultery has not afflicted most of our family — porn exposure and addiction reached some of the young men who had unlimited access to computers at college –Christian schools do monitor their systems –and call violators in for counsel–for porn use is against Christian principle and Christian dorm rules.

Neither I, my parents, grandparents, brother, husband, his brothers –have a smoking addiction or use alcohol. Evangelicalism is good to teach and reinforce and make easy “clean living.” But Jesus would be the first to say that it’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles us –but what comes out –what comes out of the mouth and our lives –out of our hearts. We can be white-washed sepulchres (graves), looking good on the outside but being filled with dead man’s bones on the inside –if we do not believe and receive Christ.

I know, someone here called this porn-terrorism –warning people that there is a choice for Christ to be made. But that’s what i believe to be true. I would be remiss not to tell you.

There are people who believe in morality and live it –in the evangelical sub-culture and some other religious communities as well –and hopefully some who are not religious at all. But Religion is a bulwark against temptation. Especially the indwelling Christ via the Holy Spirit.
#200 DaveL
February 27, 2009

Facilis, I guess you didn’t see my previous comment. I’ll fix your quote for you:

On average, adults who describe themselves as “mostly liberal” on sociopolitical issues were twice as likely as those who describe themselves as “mostly conservative” to ~~participate~~ admit participating in activities that conflict with traditional moral perspectives. In particular, liberals were five times more likely to ~~participate in~~ admit to unmarried sex (20% vs. 4%), more than three times as likely to ~~view~~ admit to viewing pornography (30% vs. 8%), more than twice as likely to ~~lie~~ admit to lying (21% vs. 8) and to ~~get~~ admit getting drunk (17% vs. 7%), and twice as likely to ~~engage~~ admit engaging in retaliation (13% vs. 6%) and gossip (17% vs. 9%).

There.

The Barna survey is all but useless. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the religious conservatives who were surveyed were highly motivated to lie.
#201 E.V.
February 27, 2009

I have never strayed from the marriage nor has my wife.

Naw, it it’s too easy…
#202 Valor Phoenix
February 27, 2009

191 – Down here in good ol’Mississippi, we call that fancy, cold, solid-state-of-matter type water of yours ‘Ice’.
#203 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 27, 2009

Barb, why are you chicken to show physical evidence for your imaginary god? Because you know he doesn’t exist? That must be it. Otherwise, you would be all over the evidence.
#204 Rev. BigDumbChimp
February 27, 2009

Facilis

BARNA

Serving the information needs of the church by offering statistics, resources, seminars and custom research on current cultural and spiritual trends.

Um humm.

Sounds really un-biased.
#205 AnthonyK
February 27, 2009

It’s very much the back-door thing with Barb. She thinks Satan lives in other peoples’ bottoms.
And yet…and yet….
#206 DaveL
February 27, 2009

Dave L, no. 166 –the self-reporting in the Barna report was anonymous,

Largely irrelevant, since I’m sure they’re eager to convince themselves that they don’t do these things, or that what they do “doesn’t count”.
#207 Rev. BigDumbChimp
February 27, 2009

I have never strayed from the marriage nor has my wife.

Naw, it it’s too easy…

Hey, are you calling my wife easy?
#208 Barb
February 27, 2009

Kamaka 196

It was Nomen who linked elsewhere to this website on the topic of evolution. So I meandered over.

I am interested in these threads. I have an opinion about them. Things are said about evangelicals, and I am one, so I will comment here if I feel inclined –if you don’t mind. And if you DO mind, why? ARen’t you secure in your own views and able to hear contradictory views without going ballistic and losing all manners?
#209 pcarini
February 27, 2009

Evangelicalism is good to teach and reinforce and make easy “clean living.”

But so is Mormonism… tell me Barb, why should I choose your belief over theirs?

But Jesus would be the first to say that it’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles us –but what comes out…

*snicker* Never mind, too late. (But good to know that nice girls really do swallow)
#210 Patricia, OM
February 27, 2009

Horse shit Barb. You cowardly blog whore, are you gonna stone the queers or not?
#211 Rev. BigDumbChimp
February 27, 2009

I am interested in these threads. I have an opinion about them. Things are said about evangelicals, and I am one, so I will comment here if I feel inclined –if you don’t mind.

No I don’t mind, you are providing everyone a great example of religion’s potentiality of causing brain rot.
#212 Son of a preacher man
February 27, 2009

Barb, your wrong! The adulterers aren’t rare in evangelical churches. They are the norm. In fact, my wife’s best friend attends an AG church here in $#$#$@$ and she (the friend) has been fucking the guy who plays the drums in the church band. It’s priceless. When I was forced to go church as a teen, I ended up fucking a lot of church members. One in particular told me that she was hoping to get pregnant so I would marry her. Thats where Christianity gets you, fucking in the hopes of getting pregnant so a man will feel compelled to marry you.
#213 Rey Fox
February 27, 2009

“Steve –Obama would be disappointed in your lack of civility in disagreement.”

Sheesh and criminy, Barb, are you for real?

“On average, adults who describe themselves as “mostly liberal” on sociopolitical issues were twice as likely as those who describe themselves as “mostly conservative” to participate in activities that conflict with traditional moral perspectives.”

Speaking of astro-glide, I think we all know where Facilis can stick his “traditional moral perspectives”. Hint: It’s the same place that Barb can stick her homophobia and bigotry.
#214 DaveL
February 27, 2009

someone who has adultery in the last week or two would be a very rare evangelical –probably a real struggler. I’ve known some women friends like that.

You’ve known people who can’t go a week without cheating on their spouses? I don’t!

There are people who believe in morality and live it –in the evangelical sub-culture and some other religious communities as well –and hopefully some who are not religious at all. But Religion is a bulwark against temptation. Especially the indwelling Christ via the Holy Spirit.

Actually, there’s very scant evidence to show that’s the case. You’ll notice a pattern if you track studies on the topic: the ones flattering to religion tend overwhelmingly to rely on self-reporting. There is excellent evidence, on the other hand, that everyday moral choices are made on an emotional level and any moral system a person claims to follow, whether religious or not, serves more to justify their behaviour after the fact.

I would say that the vast majority of the non-religious believe in and live morality. Are you familiar with the Humanist Manifesto? Check it out some time.
#215 E.V.
February 27, 2009

Barb has the fundy evangelical blinkers on just like I thought. It’s the same head in the sand world I grew up in. She’s oblivious to many things and will fight tooth and nail to keep her world of illusions alive. No amount of empirical evidence will deter her version of truth. I’m willing to bet the skeletons in the family closet are packed denser than sandstone. That’s why she proselytizes, she’s diverting all attention away from what lies beneath the surface of her little world.
#216 Wowbagger
February 27, 2009

Neither I, my parents, grandparents, brother, husband, his brothers –have a smoking addiction or use alcohol. Evangelicalism is good to teach and reinforce and make easy “clean living.” But Jesus would be the first to say that it’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles us –but what comes out –what comes out of the mouth and our lives –out of our hearts.

So, why’d Jesus turn that water into wine? Seems like an odd thing to do if you’re against alcohol.

Then again, it wouldn’t be the first time a life-long atheist with only a passing familiarity with scripture had shone a light on a Christian’s ignorance of their own holy book.

Heck, I’ve even done it to Barb before. Funny, you think that someone who was so insistent about their belief would actually bother to learn what those beliefs entailed. Then again, Christianity’s all about pick-and-choose anyway; welcome to the cafeteria!
#217 Barb
February 27, 2009

Nerd –the evidence for God is all around you. Your very existance, your brain which looks like macaroni but has incredible capabilities. Your sense of “I”-ness –consciousness –self-awareness.

We are “fearfully and wonderfully made.”

“The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.”

20″For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities?his eternal power and divine nature?have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.”
#218 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 27, 2009

Barb, show evidence for your imaginary god. BAWK BAWK BAWK. You are a real chickenshit (my apologies to your noble hens Patricia).
#219 Rev. BigDumbChimp
February 27, 2009

Nerd –the evidence for God is all around you. Your very existance, your brain which looks like macaroni but has incredible capabilities. Your sense of “I”-ness –consciousness –self-awareness.

Why is that proof of your god?
#220 Kel
February 27, 2009

I’ve just got to say as an atheist and sceptic that porn is indeed awesome. But fuck buying it. Buying porn is just a sign that you are too stupid to be able to get it for free.
#221 Son of a preacher man
February 27, 2009

OMG, I can’t believe I forgot. The head of the Assemblies of God just stepped down for an inappropriate relationship with a woman. My sister’s pastor is going to be the new Secretary General. And that’s not all. Pastors often leave with their secretaries and/or women (and sometimes men) they are counselling. The youth pastor at the James River church (oh shit now you can all guess where I live) got kicked out for diddling several youth group girls. That’s a fantastic exmaple because it is a crime and also because it backs up my point about evangelical whorism.
#222 Facilis
February 27, 2009

@pcarini

But so is Mormonism… tell me Barb, why should I choose your belief over theirs?

I suggest you check out some of my other threads here (like “I’m in good company”). where I prove that orthodox Christianity is the only worldview that can account for logic, reason and science.Mormonism cannot account for these things.
#223 DaveL
February 27, 2009

Your sense of “I”-ness –consciousness –self-awareness.

Does that mean schizophrenia defeats God?

Schizophrenia has been tied to malfunctions in certain centers of the brain that differentiate between “self” and “other”. That’s what produces the impression sufferers feel of someone else’s thoughts or voice intruding into their head.

That’s right- the sense of self has a known mechanistic basis. No “soul”, no “God” required.

Oh, and you do know that atheists don’t consider the Bible to be authoritative, right? Just checking.
#224 JimC
February 27, 2009

The problem with this entire discussion is somepeopel actually find thehuman body so disturbing that looking at it unclothed actually is considered a bad thing. It’s really no thing at all and the fact that religion has made it a thing is somewhat sad.

They are the norm. When I was forced to go church as a teen, I ended up fucking a lot of church members. One in particular told me that she was hoping to get pregnant so I would marry her.

There is alot of truth here. I have seen it inseveral churches I attended. Either the members or the kids of the members happily banging away.

The fact Barb tells her kids to marry the person they have sex with shows how demented a view this actually is on a large scale. It sounds nice but in reality leads to alot of broken lives. Better to teach a healthy respect for sexuality as a part of marriage not a reason FOR marriage.
#225 Kel
February 27, 2009

Nerd –the evidence for God is all around you. Your very existance, your brain which looks like macaroni but has incredible capabilities. Your sense of “I”-ness –consciousness –self-awareness.

Our brain and all it’s complexity, consciousness, self-awareness, and our very existence is down to evolution. We aren’t the only conscious, self-aware creatures with problem solving skills among other capabilities. Your own personal incredulity that evolution could (and through all evidential lines has) create us as we are today is not evidence against evolution and certainly not evidence for God. Our existence does not in the slightest imply God’s existence.
#226 AnthonyK
February 27, 2009

You saucy temptress Barbarella. You come here a’whoring. To talk about anal sex and lust, all the while remaining pure and just yourself. Selflessly baring your soul so that we should save ours.
Admit it, you come here to show us your religious mania, hear some atheist cuss words, and suffer outwardly, all the while quivering with jesuscumfeelings.
And you get more days in heaven!
Did you know Jesus suffered on the cross, mocked and rejected? Why – it’s just like you!
OK I admit it, your combination of lust and piety is so close to turning me on. I mean, after all, this in an atheist porn thread….
#227 Rev. BigDumbChimp,
February 27, 2009

I suggest you check out some of my other threads here (like “I’m in good company”). where I prove that orthodox Christianity is the only worldview that can account for logic, reason and science.Mormonism cannot account for these things.

No Facilis. Once again, you did not prove anything. All you did was make an assertion, repeat it ad nauseum, claimed its validity and managed to never actually support said assertion.

You have not proven anything.
#228 Wowbagger
February 27, 2009

“The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.”

The wise person speaks it to the world.
#229 Keanus
February 27, 2009

I, like Glen Davidson find this sort of survey rather meaningless. But that aside, it correlates with some other surveys of behaviors by states and the locally dominant politics, e.g. the states that have the highest divorce rates, spousal abuse, out-of-wedlock children, etc. are those that vote Republican reliably. Those are also the states with highest church attendance rates and the most born again Christians. No proof of cause and effect, but the data do make one wonder. The Palin family and Alaska are good representatives of this phenomenon.
#230 pcarini
February 27, 2009

“The fool has said in his heart, there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster.”

There, fixed it for you. Now how was that quote supposed to prove anything? (Hint: Hearsay/Biblical verse doesn’t count as evidence.)
#231 Rev. BigDumbChimp,
February 27, 2009

Oh mother fucker. Blockquote failure. that o keeps wanting to jump in front of that c

I suggest you check out some of my other threads here (like “I’m in good company”). where I prove that orthodox Christianity is the only worldview that can account for logic, reason and science.Mormonism cannot account for these things.

No Facilis. Once again, you did not prove anything. All you did was make an assertion, repeat it ad nauseum, claimed its validity and managed to never actually support said assertion.

You have not proven anything.
#232 AnthonyK
February 27, 2009

where I prove that orthodox Christianity is the only worldview that can account for logic, reason and science

Fuck me, I really must check out that thread!
#233 E.V.
February 27, 2009

It was Nomen who linked elsewhere to this website on the topic of evolution. So I meandered over.
I am interested in these threads. I have an opinion about them. Things are said about evangelicals, and I am one, so I will comment here if I feel inclined –if you don’t mind. And if you DO mind, why?

Oh Barb, if it were really that benign then no, we would welcome you. But you’ve made your intentions clear. You represented your husband as an authority on creation versus evolution and spouted verses at us like the crazy fundigelical meltdown idiot on Wife Swap and then had an attack of the vapors when you were called on your bullshit. You make sweeping pronouncements and then evade all questions which undermine your assertions.

You are intellectually dishonest. You lie. You’re eaten up with morality but have no clue when it comes to ethical behavior. You are a typical evangelical christian. I know because I was once one myself.
#234 Barbb
February 27, 2009

O for pity’s sake, Wowbagger, of course I know about the wedding at Cana and the first miracle of Christ’s, turning the water into wine –at the end of the wedding.

Maybe it was new wine. Did you know the Bible also says, “Beware of the wine when it wiggles in the glass.” and “Be not drunk with wine but filled with the Holy Spirit”?

Jesus said Don’t put new wine into old wineskins or it will burst the wine (when it ferments), so you put it in NEW wineskins that can expand with the fermentation. So maybe the tastiest wine, the new juice, is the prize –only available at harvest. Alcohol really doesn’t taste as good to me. I have tasted –on some occasions to be polite. Yccch. I really don’t like the alcohol taste. I’ve barely learned to like coffee.

Besides water and milk, they had nothing else to drink but the fruit of the vine.

Evangelicals in general do not maintain that alcohol is taboo anymore –sinful and forbidden –but knowing its potential for harm and the lack of necessity for drinking, the harm in families and on highways, it is “expedient”–ST. Paul’s word –to abstain from some activities in spite of our freedom in Christ.

Paul said ” a little wine for the stomach’s sake” and so we do find that it can prevent H. pylorric whatchacallit bacteria that causes stomach ulcers –though Johns Hopkins who publicized this said don’t start drinking if you don’t already drink –because there is more harm and potential for addiction from alcohol than benefit and there is antibiotic for this bacteria.
#235 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 27, 2009

Barb, still no physical evidence. BAWK BAWK BAWK. You should have an eternally burning bush handy. Or is god only a delusion between your ears?
#236 Kel
February 27, 2009

I suggest you check out some of my other threads here (like “I’m in good company”). where I prove that orthodox Christianity is the only worldview that can account for logic, reason and science.

lol, you still on about that? You were heavily pummelled all throughout that thread, and only your own ineptitude stood in the way of you seeing it. So go read the thread, watch [sic]fail avoid saying anything of substance, and even now after his argument has been refuted on several more threads he acts like it never happened. Facilis, you are a massive tool!
#237 pcarini
February 27, 2009

Facilis said:

I suggest you check out some of my other threads here (like “I’m in good company”). where I prove that orthodox Christianity is the only worldview that can account for logic, reason and science.

Oh.. that was a good laugh. Would you be so kind as to give me the extremely condensed, Cliff’s Notes type version? Like in a few bullet points or no more than three paragraphs? I’m not in the mood for a screed, but if it’s really as meaningful as you say then it should make sense even in skeleton form.
#238 Patricia, OM
February 27, 2009

Evangelicals. Ha! *SNORT*

What a bunch of sissies. Barb you disgust me. Grow a pair of tits and come into the real ring of bible believing.

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18: They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Come on Barb, you’re just blog whoring. Boooring. Take up a copper head and impress us.
#239 Kel
February 27, 2009

Fuck me, I really must check out that thread!

You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll go from being convinced facilis is a poe to him being a complete moron. Entertainment for all!
#240 Rev. BigDumbChimp
February 27, 2009

Barb

Anal-Ease or AstroGlide?
#241 kamaka
February 27, 2009

without going ballistic and losing all manners?

Fail to see the “going ballistic”. Calling you on sexual repression…just an inference justified by your “holier than thou” postings here. Sex is fun for a reason, and god has nothing to do with it. Though you wish to spoil the fun with fake “morals”, deep inside, you know the dirty truth. But you will always miss out on the best of sex, you have no idea of how it’s properly done. Your religion denies you the true pleasure of life.
#242 'Tis Himself
February 27, 2009

Barb bleated:

The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.

This Biblical passage has always struck me as one of the most condescending, arrogant, smug things ever written. A book pushing a particular belief has a bit that says those who don’t believe are fools. I realize it’s preaching to the choir and if the goddists kept it for home consumption I wouldn’t complain about it. However, more than half the time I’m discussing belief with a goddist they trot out this quote.

First of all, the goddists are ignoring “…whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” (Matthew 5:22 KJV) Another point is that I’m not going to accept a piece of self-serving propaganda. Finally, it’s all I can do from saying “and a hardy ‘fuck you’ to you” whenever someone quotes this verse at me.
#243 Barb
February 27, 2009

error in previous post –”burst the wineskins” not the wine.

MY MY, EV –DO speak only for yourself. You don’t know me well enough to speak to my ethics and morality. You may have been a liar –or intellectually dishonest. I deny that –quite sincerely.

I’m not making a claim of my righteousness –but his –and I am surely more righteous because of faith in Him than if I lived for myself alone. We are always challenged, in evangelical Christendom, to be compassionate, non-judgmental, not self-righteous, kind, non-snobbish, generous, unselfish, etc.

Bottom line here, is, you disagree with me on most subjects because our world views are worlds apart. Right? And you have no other way to disagree than by ad hominem attack. Why is that? They did it to Jesus, prophets, Paul, John, Peter. They were scornful to these people. I guess I’m on the right side of the scorn, at least.
#244 Wowbagger
February 27, 2009

facilis wrote:

Mormonism cannot account for these things.

facilis, we’re still waiting for you to produce the details of the examination you undertook to discern the the Mormon version of Xinanity is any more or less valid than your own. You claim it falls short; you need to explain how and why – in detail.

We’re also waiting for you to list exactly what it is that qualifies you to undertake such an examination and which criteria you use to make such a judgement – not to mention justify the unsupported assertion that the means by which a religion a judged valid relates to its revelation.

So, please don’t make any more claims to have ‘shown’ anything until you do.
#245 Kel
February 27, 2009

Bottom line here, is, you disagree with me on most subjects because our world views are worlds apart. Right? And you have no other way to disagree than by ad hominem attack.

You were shown quite clearly through argument and science that evolution was true, and you’ve done neither, instead appealing to authorities. And as for ad hominem – “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.”
#246 AnthonyK
February 27, 2009

“where I prove that orthodox Christianity is the only worldview that can account for logic, reason and science”

No but seriously that must have been awesome. Why wasn’t I informed?
#247 Barb
February 27, 2009

Patricia –I think I’m in a den of vipers NOW!
#248 pcarini
February 27, 2009

And you have no other way to disagree than by ad hominem attack. Why is that?

Present actual proof, of anything, and we’ll have something to talk about. Until then, ad hominem attacks are far more entertaining.
#249 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 27, 2009

Barb, as a scientist I look at the world and see it totally explained by science. There is no need to invoke imaginary deities like you do. That makes me superior to your limited imagination and knowledge.
Now, if you want me to back off that a little, you have to back off the concept that you know everything through your god and bible. Your god doesn’t exist and your bible is fiction. Deal with it.
#250 Rev. BigDumbChimp
February 27, 2009

And you have no other way to disagree than by ad hominem attack.

Oh barb, please define what is an ad hominem attack?

Then please show us where EV used one.
#251 AnthonyK
February 27, 2009

We are always challenged, in evangelical Christendom, to be compassionate, non-judgmental, not self-righteous….,

“Challenged” is correct.

Where did you learn to be judgemental, preachy, humourless, moronically uncurious, insensitive, prurient, lustful, and foolish?
#252 E.V.
February 27, 2009

You don’t know me well enough to speak to my ethics and morality.

Honey, it’s on the other threads, just waiting to be reread.

Yes, the attack is ad hominem but it is not an ad hominem fallacy.
You don’t even understand the difference.
I stand by everything I’ve said, so answer the question Barb. You stated anal sex was unnatural and immoral therefore gays are unnatural and immoral. How do you stand on oral-genital sex and have you performed it or had it performed on you? Have you practiced unnatural acts yourself?
#253 Ryogam
February 27, 2009

Family values, Bible Style!

Genesis 38

6: And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar.
7: And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.
8: And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
9: And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
10: And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.
11: Then said Judah to Tamar his daughter in law, Remain a widow at thy father’s house, till Shelah my son be grown: for he said, Lest peradventure he die also, as his brethren did. And Tamar went and dwelt in her father’s house.
12: And in process of time the daughter of Shuah Judah’s wife died; and Judah was comforted, and went up unto his sheepshearers to Timnath, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite.
13: And it was told Tamar, saying, Behold thy father in law goeth up to Timnath to shear his sheep.
14: And she put her widow’s garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife.
15: When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face.
16: And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter in law.) And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me?

This holy book makes me hotter than July! Truly porn has nothing on the good book for sexual depravity.
#254 'Tis Himself
February 27, 2009

The default position is that gods don’t exist. If you say that gods exist, then you have to provide evidence. So far, not a single goddist of any flavor has ever presented the least bit of evidence that any gods exist. If there’s no evidence, then the best bet is there’s no gods.
#255 Kel
February 27, 2009

No but seriously that must have been awesome. Why wasn’t I informed?

Oh it’s a beautiful thread. facilis asserts that his gods accounts for logic, then people show his position to be circular. Facilis swiftly counters “how can you say it’s circular if you can’t account for logic?” thus avoiding saying anything of substance for the entire 1300 posts that went on. Read here, it’s entertaining – or at the very least get drunk first. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/im_in_good_company.php

Later facilis brings the same shit, then admits that one does not have to account for the laws of logic in order to be able to use logic – thus confirming his position is circular and he’s back to square one. the way he talks though, it’s like he’s oblivious (or at least he thinks we are) to how the argument has actually gone.
#256 Patricia, OM
February 27, 2009

Proverbs 26:11 – As a dog returneth to his vomit; so a fool returneth to his folly.

And Barb once again proves scripture right.
#257 Facilis
February 27, 2009

@pcarini

Would you be so kind as to give me the extremely condensed, Cliff’s Notes type version? Like in a few bullet points or no more than three paragraphs?

The basic outline is
-Humans reason.
-In order to reason they use laws of logic. These laws of logic are universal (apply to everyone), objective (not dependent on human opinion or conventions), immaterial (not made of matter) and invariant( do not change).
-God is universal,objective,immaterial and invariant and he is the necessary pre-condition for these laws of logic to exist.
-This is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. Try to account for the laws of logic apart from God and i will show you.
#258 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 27, 2009

Facilis, you are presuming god before proving god. That is a fallacy as we have repeatedly pointed out. You failed again.
#259 Rev. BigDumbChimp
February 27, 2009

Facilis swiftly counters “how can you say it’s circular if you can’t account for logic?”

Which in itself is circular.
#260 Barb
February 27, 2009

Tis Himself 242 “‘The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.’ This Biblical passage has always struck me as one of the most condescending, arrogant, smug things ever written”

Yes, Jesus warns me against saying, “YOU FOOL!” but Paul just makes a statement that if one says there is no god, he IS a fool. One statement is attack; the other is a statement of fact. Call it smug if you want, but Paul had encountered a resurrected Christ when he was just walking down a road to Damascus –on his way to scorn and persecute Christians. He knew he had been such a fool –though he did believe in God, but not Christ at that time. Christ zapped him with blinding light and spoke to him. God tells another man where to find the blinded Paul and how to give him sight –ironically at a house on the street called “Straight.” (the Old Testament refers to the annointed one making the crooked places straight.)

This amazing story is found at
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%209;&version=31;
#261 Ken Cope
February 27, 2009

Y’know people, I know from pr0n. In the early 70′s, I trained at all the best motion pitchur Thee8turs behind the Orange Curtain, in the Nation/State of Disneyland, to become a Union Label Projectionist (International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Motion Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada Local something or other) back when trained Union professionals worked up in the booth, instead of the guy from the popcorn booth running upstairs and pushing a button at the multiplex these days (which is why I can wait for blu-ray on my 7.1 home system). After all that training, my first high-paying Union job was projectionist on the night shift and weekends at the Pussycat Theater in Buena Park, right down the street from Knottzi Berry Farm, about 1 year after Deep Throat. We ran a movie that was a documentary, for nearly 6 months, called, Making the Blue Film. Harry Reems made a large cameo appearance. It contained a lot of vintage B&W stag films from the early 20s, like “The Radio Repairman” in which vacuum tubes were hidden and discovered, repeatedly. It also featured the animated Tijuana Bible, “Eveready Hardon” in which a character resembling Mutt more than Jeff would espy a young thing sunbathing and follow his suddenly extended telephone pole toward her. It was quite the omnibus anthology. Did I mention that Walter and Cordelia Knott, of boysenberry preserves fame, were still alive and figured they owned Buena Park? As projectionist, when visited by the Vice Squad, I was obliged to hand over three prints of the offensive material and shut down the place, while everybody but me (UNION!) spent the night in jail for smut. This included the candy girl (who was sweet!) the vice manager, who resembled Seymour from TV’s Fright Night and would frequently observe the auditorium from the portholes just to watch whoever it was who was particularly enjoying the show and contributing to the cinemuck, and the blond, blue-eyed manager, to whom tomorrow belonged; one night, I brought in a book on Carl Jung to read between change-overs, and the manager clicked his heels, greeted me with his friendly “Heil!” and noting my book, asked to see if there were any pictures of Hitler in it, since Hitler had been an admirer of Jung.

When it came time to display the smut for the judge and jury, the only place available to screen the evidence against my former smut-dispersing employers, again and again and again, with circles and arrows and paragraphs on the back to be used as evidence against them, was the Knottzi Berry Farm mock-up of Independence Hall. Ironic, ainnit?

Five years later, when the superior format, Betamax, lost to VHS because of the pr0n availability, viewing pr0n in public theaters became a thing of the past, a point lost on Paul Reubens, who should’ve rented a raincoat.
#262 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 27, 2009

Barb, if you find it uncomfortable here, you always have the option of not posting here again. I suggest you use that option.
#263 pcarini
February 27, 2009

Facilis:

The basic outline is
-Humans reason.
-In order to reason they use laws of logic. These laws of logic are universal (apply to everyone), objective (not dependent on human opinion or conventions), immaterial (not made of matter) and invariant( do not change).
-God is universal,objective,immaterial and invariant and he is the necessary pre-condition for these laws of logic to exist.
-This is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. Try to account for the laws of logic apart from God and i will show you.

Point number 3 is what’s called begging the question. You’re asserting the premise that you’re trying to prove. And could you enumerate these laws from point 2?
#264 AnthonyK
February 27, 2009

Kel – tell me more! Was there awe and wonder? Does PZ know?
#265 Facilis
February 27, 2009

The default position is that gods don’t exist. If you say that gods exist, then you have to provide evidence. So far, not a single goddist of any flavor has ever presented the least bit of evidence that any gods exist. If there’s no evidence, then the best bet is there’s no gods.

I presented my irrefutable transcendental proof.
#266 Kel
February 27, 2009

Try to account for the laws of logic apart from God and i will show you.

Facilis, the laws of logic are self-evidence. Don’t believe me? What does 2 plus 2 equal? If it cannot be anything other than 4, then the laws of logic are self-evident. by adding a god there, you add nothing to logic. If God is the creator of logic, then surely 2+2 could be made to equal something other than 4. But since they can’t, you are refuted. Prove otherwise.
#267 E.V.
February 27, 2009

Babs, ad hominem simply means to the man. (or woman in this case) . An example of an ad hominem fallacy would be : PZ is not a good biologist because he thinks Barb is a vapid moralizing dolt.
#268 Barb
February 27, 2009

You guys presume evolution to be true and you haven’t the proof of macroevolution. The question is, is nature GOD or is God the ruler and maker of nature?
#269 TomF
February 27, 2009

There’s some funny math going on here. Or maybe just typos.

If the highest was 5.47 and the lowest 1.92, that’s a difference of 3.55. So how can the god-botherers be buying 3.6 more subs per thousand than the brights? 3.6 > 3.55. Even if the 3.6 was rounded up from maybe 3.51, that seems unlikely.
#270 Kel
February 27, 2009

I presented my irrefutable transcendental proof.

Irrefutable, eh?
#271 'Tis Himself
February 27, 2009

God is universal,objective,immaterial and invariant and he is the necessary pre-condition for these laws of logic to exist.

Facilis, you’ve made these assertions time and time again. You’ve yet to show the slightest bit of evidence to support any of these allegations.

Try to account for the laws of logic apart from God and i will show you.

The “laws of logic” are hardwired into our brains. Evolution installed them just like evolution installed the ability to speak and the ability to clot blood.
#272 pcarini
February 27, 2009

I presented my irrefutable transcendental proof.

Bwa ha ha ha! I’ve got your Irrefutable Transcendental Proof hanging boy!
#273 Rev. BigDumbChimp
February 27, 2009

I presented my irrefutable transcendental proof.

You presented what you think is proof, but it failed miserably. Maybe you should go back and read those threads/
#274 Barb
February 27, 2009

EV –you seem to think you are such a teacher! I hope you really are.

to the man –ad hominem –attacks.

Attack on or to the man or woman. I never mentioned ad hominem fallacies –but attacks. It simply means insulting people intstead of dealing with what they actually say.

Examples abound here.
#275 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 27, 2009

Facilis the Fallacious Fool, you presented nothing. You still have nothing. And with your lack of wits, you will always have nothing. You need to go away. You are boring us with your unreason and illogic.
#276 'Tis Himself
February 27, 2009

You guys presume evolution to be true and you haven’t the proof of macroevolution.

We have proof of “macroevolution.” Just because you don’t accept the proof doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
#277 Kel
February 27, 2009

You guys presume evolution to be true and you haven’t the proof of macroevolution.

ummm, are you high right now? You were shown speciation. You were shown how all lines of circumstancial evidence point to common ancestry. You were even shown how your view of what speciation is was wrong. It was quite clear from the discussion that you didn’t know what macroevolution is or how evolution works in general. Macroevolution has been observed countless times, and by looking at historical evidences (the genetic code, geographical distribution, the fossil record) we can see that we were forged by the same process that we see splitting in life today.

Don’t take your personal misunderstanding of evolution and incredulity of the process as proof that we haven’t observed it, becuase you are either lying about what scientists have observed or generally ignorant of what science has been going on over the last 150 years.
#278 DaveL
February 27, 2009

You guys presume evolution to be true

I presume no such thing. I infer it from multiple lines of evidence. We’ve observed several species forming. We’ve observed novel functions and structures arising through mutation and natural selection. We have molecular and morphological markers that show the interrelatedness of all living things and demonstrate their progression through the fossil record. We have extracted testable predictions from the theory that have borne fruit.

That’s not presumption; that’s science.

and you haven’t the proof of macroevolution.

By all means, tell me how you define “macroevolution”.

The question is, is nature GOD or is God the ruler and maker of nature?

Neither. God is an imaginary character.
#279 Theo
February 27, 2009

Tell me again why you think Facilis is not a poe?
#280 Patricia, OM
February 27, 2009

Well good ol’ Barb is in for the naughty bits rightly. Proverbs 26:3 – A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool’s back.

Come on, it’s biblical kink after all.
#281 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 27, 2009

Barb, we scientists have observed all we need for evolution to be true without the need for your imaginary deity. Why can’t you accept the truth, rather than your delusions? You have shown no physical evidence to back your claims. but science has probably a million or so papers with physical evidence to back its claims. Your word is worthless, since you can’t even show physical evidence your for imaginary god. Time for you to quit.
#282 Rev. BigDumbChimp
February 27, 2009

You guys presume evolution to be true and you haven’t the proof of macroevolution. The question is, is nature GOD or is God the ruler and maker of nature?

No Barb, you fail again. We don’t presume anything. We follow the evidence.

You presume everything basing it on your book.

The evidence for evolution is beyond strong.

Please go here and search for evolution. Refute all that evidence. Not by saying it can’t be correct. Actually refute each instance of research.

If that is not enough, go here and perform the same search and follow that up with the same critical examination of each article.

So Barb. Explain to me how you do not work backwards from the bible?
#283 AnthonyK
February 27, 2009

Barb – facilis’s mum is seeking a very late abortion. Could you counsel him?
Facilis – Barb asserts that an irrefutable proof cannot be transcendental. Is she correct in this? She’d like to hear what you think.

Sorted
#284 Ken Cope
February 27, 2009

Without Facilis, there would be no foolishness so witless. Without Facilis, how could the extent of such Irrefutable Transcendental Witless Foolishness be measurable?

This is proven by the impossibility of the contrary: the intelligence of facilis. Try to account for such witless foolishness apart from facilis and i will laugh at you, not with you.
#285 Kel
February 27, 2009

Tell me again why you think Facilis is not a poe?

Because he linked to super cereal websites to back up his assertions.
#286 Kel
February 27, 2009

Barb – facilis’s mum is seeking a very late abortion. Could you counsel him?
Facilis – Barb asserts that an irrefutable proof cannot be transcendental. Is she correct in this? She’d like to hear what you think.

hahaha, that’s awesome!
#287 Ken Cope
February 27, 2009

whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool’s back.

Don’t forget the wetsuits!
#288 E.V.
February 27, 2009

Babs avoids the question again.
Don’t think no one noticed.
& no Babs, pointing out that you are intellectually dishonest, pompous and a prig isn’t really an attack, it’s an observation. I got it from your sister-better-than-you posts where you impress us with your vast stores of scientific knowledge and your ability to vomit verse when you can’t answer a question. Dunning-Kruger effect, your picture is under the title.
#289 pcarini
February 27, 2009

Tell me again why you think Facilis is not a poe?

Because I don’t think a normal person, even in jest, would have the arrogance to call their bad logic The Irrefutable Transcendental Proof. Nor do I think an otherwise sane person would come up with the phrase — I’ve got to recognize the sheer creative force that only serious crazy can generate.
#290 Rev. BigDumbChimp
February 27, 2009

whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool’s back.

Don’t forget the wetsuits!

Makers Mark>nose>monitor
#291 pcarini
February 27, 2009

AnthonyK:

Barb – facilis’s mum is seeking a very late abortion. Could you counsel him?

How old is Facilis now? Still, it might not be too bad an idea…
#292 E.V.
February 27, 2009

Barb the Epidemiologist:

Anytime people are referred to as homophobes or bigots on the subject of gay rights, I will probably remind us of the activities which spread disease –and make Jesus weep –and me, too.

Wow, you are one stupid evangelical piece of work.
#293 Patricia, OM
February 27, 2009

*sigh* I’m wasting my time here.

Barb can’t take my medal rattling. Three titted sow.
#294 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 27, 2009

pcarini, I also think a poe wouldn’t keep it up this long. I saw his first posts. I thought “this idiot will be trouble”. And he has proven to be a stubborn idiot.
#295 AnthonyK
February 27, 2009

I’ve had enough. Barb and Facilis have both convinced me. Off to blow the old brains out. G’night
#296 E.V.
February 27, 2009

ANd let’s not let these pearls of wisdom go unnoticed:

On the other hand, liberals and those who raised themselves as kids, without any moral or religious upbringing, have been so over exposed to nudity in their world, so sexually experienced, so uninhibited in sex, that THEIR inclination is toward the perverse, the abnormal. They can’t even get aroused by anything legitimate, monogamous and normal but want to get into really nasty stuff. And have no desire to marry. Or they want to adulterate and “swing” as married folks.

I guess all that college liberalism and those Life Art classes made it to where I can’t even get aroused by anything legitimate.

Barb. I’ve been married for two decades. Never “swung” and never “adulterated”. Never had to…
#297 Kel
February 27, 2009

When [sic]fail first started posting, I checked his website and found he was the real deal. Then he starting posting really insane shit and I thought to myself he is a poe. I’m still expecting at any moment he’s going to post “haha, I fooled you all. I am a poe!”
#298 clinteas
February 27, 2009

One of the most fascinating things to do on Pharyngula is to watch the severely religiously braindamaged argue in what they think is a lucid and logical fashion.

Been following this thread closely,and it is utterly amazing to see Barb(ah well,and FFF to a degree) argue from utter brainwashed ignorance,however totally oblivious of the fact that she’s just rehashing bits and pieces from bronze age literature,which she has adopted as guide for her totally wasted useless existence full of phobias,restrictions and superstitions.

It makes me shiver.
#299 Ken Cope
February 27, 2009

It makes me shiver.

with antici
#300 Patricia, OM
February 27, 2009

Proverbs 26:23 – Burning lips and a wicked heart are like a potsherd covered with silver dross.

What? WTF?

I can sympathize with the burning lips and wicked heart, but potsherds covered in silver dross? What the hell is gawd talking about?
#301 E.V.
February 27, 2009

Barb sez teh ghey buttseks is icky but won’t admit to all the pole smokin she dun, which also makes teh bebby Jebus cry. So she go bye bye.
#302 clinteas
February 27, 2009

As to the porn thing….

I would have to agree with the previous poster who said that porn goes through all layers of society.
I dont think its restricted to socially conservative or religious people,although I like the thought that they would be too stupid to find the free stuff online and therefore subscribe/pay.
The difference might be those people watch porn and feel guilty about it afterwards,whereas less religious and more-at-ease-with-their-sexuality people dont.
#303 Patricia, OM
February 27, 2009

AnthonyK – Never let that sort of fool get you down. Proverbs 26:11.

Your turnip may need rinsing, but don’t give up.
#304 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 28, 2009

potsherds covered in silver dross

Broken pottery covered in slag/scum from smelting silver. I’m not getting it either, unless it means just trash.
#305 Ken Cope
February 28, 2009

Poor Barb. A White Bride at a Goth Wedding.
#306 Dave
February 28, 2009

Who needs to buy porn when there is Free Porn
#307 Rey Fox
February 28, 2009

“Tell me again why you think Facilis is not a poe?”

Tell us why you think he is. Do you really think he’s too crazy to be real? You have a low standard for crazy.
#308 Theo
February 28, 2009

#307 Why I think Facilis is a Poe

There is something about his style of arguing that seems not quite genuine rather than not quite sane. It doesn’t seem as though he’s working very hard. He just trots out the same old lines as though he’s got the whole argument written out already and just splices it in to provoke a response, then waits a while and does it again, and again. Poke the scientist and watch him squirm; declare victory; repeat.

You folks are better at spotting these things than I am, or at least more practiced. Maybe he’s having a laugh and is crazy, maybe he’s just taking a piss, or maybe he believes that because we can tell that a raven is not a writing desk means that god made it so. I just detect something that makes me think ‘fake’ more than crazy.
#309 E.V.
February 28, 2009

“Tell me again why you think Facilis is not a poe?”

For the same reason why I have such affection for Barb and Facilis, they sound exactly like many of my relatives. Same arguments, same willful ignorance and the same circular reasoning and verse vomiting. If Facilis is a poe, it’s a derivative and purposeless effort. Poe’s should show zeal and unwavering earnestness toward newly fabricated gods, religions and cults.
#310 Kel
February 28, 2009

Speaking of porn, I’m still getting daily hits from all around the world of people searching for some combination of “Banana vagina”, it’s now 5th on google if you search for “banana vagina”. Suck it ray comfort!
#311 Ken Cope
February 28, 2009

I just detect something that makes me think ‘fake’ more than crazy.

If facilis is a Turing bot, I’d be impressed only because I can’t imagine how anybody could compile code with logic so atrocious. Truth tables would hork at the word salad facilis spews here on such a regular and oblivious basis.

I marvel at the regulars here who (per Blackadder) can’t be bothered to strike facilis, but are still willing to extend an arm and clench a fist while facilis takes a running start in order to hurl his his bloody face at unmoved knuckles, only to spit out a tooth or two and declare victory before trying again.
#312 Feynmaniac
February 28, 2009

Would you be so kind as to give me the extremely condensed, Cliff’s Notes type version?

I actually summarized the conversation in the form of a sitcom. It has a happy ending!
#313 Facilis
February 28, 2009

@Ken Cope
You should read the threads. I proved that God was the source of logic and reason and refuted everyone.No-one could account for logic and reason.
#314 Kel
February 28, 2009

I proved that God was the source of logic and reason and refuted everyone.No-one could account for logic and reason.

No you didn’t. You stated a circular position then answered any refutation with “but without accounting for logic, you can’t say that” completely misrepresenting what logic is and how it’s used. Can 2 + 2 ever equal anything but 4? If not, then why do we need to posit a deity to explain that?
#315 Ken Cope
February 28, 2009

facilis, if there was a god, and the blame for you was pinned on him, he’d suicidally auto-erotically asphyxiate himself if it would help him disavow any association with you and your perverse misapprehension of logic.
#316 Kel
February 28, 2009

Here’s my refutation of facilis
#317 Ken Cope
February 28, 2009

That was pharyngula gold, Feynmaniac.

No-one could account for facilis being unable to recognize logic and reason if it bit him on the ass.

Fixed that for ya, facilis.
#318 Kel
February 28, 2009

And: mathematics with facilis
#319 Valor Phoenix
February 28, 2009

…has anyone ever pointed out to Facilis that the Christian usage of Logic(Logos) was lifted from the Greeks, whom developed it long before Jesus was around?

Also, how does he account for the other logic systems and developments of mathematics, like the Arabians, Chinese, Tao , Japanese, Hindu, etc? Christians didn’t get into logic until they recovered the works of the Greeks(eg Aristotle) as a result of the crusades.

“One and one cannot become two, since neither becomes two.” Figure that out and get back to me. I’d pose ‘The sound of one hand clapping.’, but I don’t want him any where near the Tao.
#320 Ken Cope
February 28, 2009

Yay verily, is it not written in Kel 3:16…

Kel smote him so mightily that the earholes of facilis turned to assholes and shat upon his shoulders. Whereupon did facilis grin toothlessly and with great stench, in order to declare victory to the multitudes gathered to mock and laugh at him unto scorn.

That thread reminded me that we haven’t heard from the delightful misogynist heddle recently.
#321 Facilis
February 28, 2009

I’ll do my own humorous summary
“Debating with an atheist”
Atheist: I deny the existence of air
Facilis: what?? You’re breathing now. Air is the necessary precondition for breathing.
A: No. I see no reason why air is necessary for breathing. I am breathing now and i don’t believe in air.
F: It the impossibility of the contrary. What else could you be breathing.
A: That is just an air of the gaps fallacy.You just insert air into the gaps since you do not know how people breathe.
F:But how else can you account for breathing?
A:I’m just breathing because that is the way it is. I’m still going to deny the existence of air.
#322 Kel
February 28, 2009

I’ll do my own humorous summary

If you are going to do a humorous summary, try not to fail at it.
#323 Ragutis
February 28, 2009

Morality, Barb? How does that even enter into how consenting adults entertain or express themselves sexually? Rape is immoral. Pedophilia is immoral. Extorting or manipulating someone into sex is immoral. 73 people participating in a Furry S&M bukkake orgy? Matter of personal preference. Just like you and Mr. Barb having vanilla sex in the missionary position with the lights off. Watching porn: matter of personal preference. Honestly, do you control what turns you on? No. No one does. Something either gets you going, or it doesn’t.

Now, if you take issue with how women are portrayed in some porn, or how others are manipulated into and within the industry, that’s another matter. There are moral questions there.

And homosexuality/bisexuality? That’s about as much a matter of morality as your bloodtype is. It’s biology, not a choice. And those folks have just as much of a right to have emotional and sexual relationships with the person that makes them the happiest as you do. And STDs are just as easily transmitted via heterosexual sex. Safe gay sex is as low risk as safe hetero sex. And what’s the hangup with anal? Gay or straight, if neither party has an STD, and the couple are monogamous, there’s no risk. If you don’t enjoy it, or even just find it icky, fine. Don’t do it. But quit with the ignorance and ridiculous assertions.

Barb, it’s possible to be a good christian without being ignorant or bigoted. I know, I was one, and I know many in my life. Try it. It makes the world so much more interesting and enjoyable. It must be a real downer to constantly imagine sin, depravity and abomination where people are simply expressing love, showing affection, having a good time or just plain going about their lives.

And if you don’t like the way you’re treated here, get off the high horse. You make a real easy target up there in your smug superiority complex.
#324 Sven DiMilo
February 28, 2009

Damn it, I unkilled facilis for a second. And now I have to ask. Facilis, I’m going to go out on a limb and surmise that the “air” of your little metaphor must be, like, religion or God or Roman Catholicism or whatever. OK. What is the metaphorical equivalent of “breathing”?
#325 Valor Phoenix
February 28, 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air

Sorry, but air is one of the non-supernatural materialistic parts of the natural world we like so much.

Atheist = not-a-theist = We don’t think Foster’s Home for Imaginary Friends is a documentary.
#326 Ragutis
February 28, 2009

Oh, and Facilis… shut up. Seriously dude, you’re humiliating yourself and it’s painful to watch.
#327 Sven DiMilo
February 28, 2009

Oh, wait, I get it: reason and logic, right? If so, that is the least appropriate metaphor I’ve seen for making the point I think that you think you’re making. For one thing, breathing evolved (reason and logic too, see?). Air is not necassary for breathing. In fact, breathing originally evolved for breathing water.
#328 windy
February 28, 2009

A:I’m just breathing because that is the way it is. I’m still going to deny the existence of air.

Facilis, you can easily show that the atheist needs air by putting her in a airtight container (but don’t get any ideas, please). Can you make a God-proof container and show that the person inside can’t reason without God?
#329 Kel
February 28, 2009

I’ll contend that 2+2=4 is not only empirically demonstrated, but it can’t be any other way. Thus the statement 2+2=4 is self-evident. It needs no explanation as it can be no other way. To put an omnipotent creator as the giver of logic means that the giver of logic should be able to change logic. But since logic cannot be changed, then positing a creator of logic is useless. This is just a rehash of the problem posed by the Euthyphro dilemma. Read the TAG refutation I posted earlier [sic]fail and actually see where you disagree with Martin Wagner. Come on facilis, show that you have the ability to refute the refutation.
#330 Ken Cope
February 28, 2009

Spinninem tonight for Barb and facilis. From beyond the grave, Frank Zappa sez, Jesus Thinks You’re a Jerk!
#331 Rrr
February 28, 2009

Hey, Barb: No, just no. I am not going to list how my life has been scarred thanks to religious communities, I can only be thankful I never ever believed any fictional characters were real, not Santa Claus, not the christian god, not the easter bunny. I only hope that in time you will grow wiser, and come to peace with who you are and start being rational, living your life in good health, spreading joy and wisdome to your fellow humans, instead of toxic mentality.

Religions followed literally is poison, religions followed lightly is illogical.
Please go troll exchristian.net instead, they might make you see some sense.

And yes, not belonging to a religion/your religion does not automatically make people wise or good, please don’t think we foolishly think so. There are more shackles and unhealthy memes in life than just religion.

to marry the person they have sex with shows how demented a view this actually is on a large scale. It sounds nice but in reality leads to alot of broken lives. Better to teach a healthy respect for sexuality as a part of marriage not a reason FOR marriage.

Very, very yes.
#332 clinteas
February 28, 2009

Uff,this chasing facilis’ logic thing is tedious, I think I need some porn……

Or Bill Maher !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBoIIhUo3G8&feature=channel_page
#333 Kel
February 28, 2009

Frank Zappa is a legend, great link there Ken. Clinteas, thanks for the Bill Maher monologue. Sipping on some Chartreuse in this fucking searing Aussie heat so some Bill Maher is fitting the bill quite nicely.
#334 clinteas
February 28, 2009

Oh sorry,this one is better…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-GOR7D2tsY&feature=channel_page
#335 Feynmaniac
February 28, 2009

Facilis,

I’ll do my own humorous summary
“Debating with an atheist”
Atheist: I deny the existence of air

Again I ask: Why do religious people suck at analogies?!

We know air exists because we have empirical evidence, not because of some “impossibility of the contrary”. EVEN IN YOUR OWN “HUMOUROUS” SUMMARIES YOU ARE FALLACIOUS!!!!
#336 Douglas La Rocca
February 28, 2009

Hypocrisy at its best. Keep ‘em coming PZ.
#337 Ken Cope
February 28, 2009

As facilis puts on the moves, Barb cries, Don’t Touch Me There!

(Before there was youtube, there was only The Tubes…)
#338 clinteas
February 28, 2009

Hi Kel,

sorry just cant stand wasting time on trying to convert the braindead anymore lol…
Im waiting for the Soccer final Mel-Adel to start,and oiling my throat for it,followed by the Cricket in SA….a true atheist nite in watching Sport..:-)

And its actually nice and cool over here atm…
#339 Kel
February 28, 2009

That sounds pretty damn good Clinteas. Unfortunately I don’t have pay TV (I refuse to get it until I can just get the sport channels on their own) I’m going to be completely devoid of sport this evening. Melbourne is going to thump Adelaide (just like last time) though it still should be a good game to watch. Apparently it’s 32 right now in Canberra, that’s why I’m drinking.
#340 clinteas
February 28, 2009

Kel,

between us Aussies….

Mel-Adel

http://livetv.ru/en/eventinfo/20061/
#341 Valor Phoenix
February 28, 2009

For future reference, I’ve nailed the root of Facilis’s premise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

Logos (pronounced /?l???g?s/) (Greek ?????, pronounced /?l???s/, logos) is an important term in philosophy, analytical psychology, rhetoric and religion. Logos is explicitly dealt with on page 183 of the Rhetorical Tradition textbook.
Heraclitus (ca. 535?475 BCE) established the term in Western philosophy as meaning both the source and fundamental order of the cosmos. The sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to rational discourse. The Stoic philosophers identified the term with the divine animating principle pervading the universe. After Judaism came under Hellenistic influence, Philo adopted the term into Jewish philosophy. The Gospel of John identifies Jesus as the incarnation of the Logos, through which all things are made. The gospel further identifies the Logos as divine (theos).[1] Second-century Christian Apologists, such as Justin Martyr, identified Jesus as the Logos or Word of God, a distinct intermediary between God and the world.[2]
In current use, Logos may refer to the Christian sense, identifying Jesus with the Word of God, though in academic discussions the term is more directly used in a rhetorical discussion.

His argument is basically that Logos(Logic) = Word of God, even though of course the Christians came long after the Greeks developed the concept of Logos.
#342 Rrr
February 28, 2009

His argument is basically that Logos(Logic) = Word of God, even though of course the Christians came long after the Greeks developed the concept of Logos.

But don’t you know? That was just as fake as the dinosaurs! Them godhating historians lie and attribute great godly inventions to silly barbarian civilizations! I mean, just look at the greek goods, they’re just glorified super-powered humans! Nothing like God Almighty at all!
(…I just had to, wouldn’t resist the urge to parrot/make fun of some stuff I’ve read…)
#343 Rrr
February 28, 2009

I found a nice Zappa quote:

“The essence of Christianity is told to us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the Tree of Knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just kept your fucking mouth shut and hadn’t asked any questions. “

Defintely sums it up nicely.
#344 Kel
February 28, 2009

thanks Clinteas, streaming it on Sopcast now.
#345 Kel
February 28, 2009

Oh an go Adelaide! (my heritage on my Dad’s side is South Australian so I have a connection with that city)
#346 jt512
February 28, 2009

…one could argue that it was just the few Democrats in Utah who were slavering most obsessively over porn…. ?PZ

As a consulting biostatistician I resent the fact that a biologist understands the concept of ecologic fallacy. Are you trying to put me out of a job?

Jay
#347 'Tis Himself
February 28, 2009

Feynmaniac #335

Again I ask: Why do religious people suck at analogies?!

Amen, brother.
#348 SEF
February 28, 2009

@ Barb #217:

“The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.”

Note (for the hard-of-thinking) that that’s just an ad hominem attack on atheism / atheists. No evidence of foolishness is actually provided within the context. Nor is there any evidence to argue against the assertion that there is no god. So the defamatory remark is being used in lieu of the believer having a valid argument to make – ie it’s an ad hominem attack.

As it happens, it’s actually rather smart (if cowardly) for the atheists back then, when surrounded by rabidly homicidal religionists, to merely be thinking their atheism internally (NB albeit in their heads rather than their hearts) and not risking saying it out loud very much.

What that passage mostly shows is that at least a few people way back then already recognised that religion was rubbish and they had the religionists worried enough to lie about and defame them. Not that it takes much for a religionist to lie. It’s more the norm than the exception for them.

* * *

Meanwhile, it’s very revealing that Barb is once again back trolling here while assiduously ignoring the challenges made in the previous thread in which she made (many!) crazy assertions that she couldn’t back up with evidence or logical argument.

Barb, I’m still waiting for you to report on what your husband, the MD, has to say about your claim of “hearts that beat for a lifetime without any external energy source” (originally in post #90 of that thread). Have you even asked him yet? Or are you afraid to find out how much of an embarrassment to him you are in your arrogant ignorance and dishonesty; or reveal to us just how medically incompetent he is for not knowing any more than you on this matter? You must suspect that he doesn’t, since you apparently believe you magically became an expert merely by marrying him.
#349 SEF
February 28, 2009

@ AnthonyK #232

I really must check out that thread!

It doesn’t say/do what Facilis claims of it. Which may be part of the reason he never actually links to it but instead merely makes such hollow assertions about it. (NB The other likely reason being that he’s incompetent at linking.)

Here it is – but be warned that it’s a long (and rather repetitive) thread, full of fractal failure on facilis’ part. You may be heading for a headache (especially if you’re prone to head-desking in response to witnessing extreme stupidity).
#350 SEF
February 28, 2009

Ah well, in the course of some very lengthy catching up I find that people (notably still not facilis himself though!) eventually did supply links to the thread (and other ones) after failing to do so for rather a lot of posts.
#351 Rev. BigDumbChimp
February 28, 2009

I’ll do my own humorous summary
“Debating with an atheist”
Atheist: I deny the existence of air
Facilis: what?? You’re breathing now. Air is the necessary precondition for breathing.
A: No. I see no reason why air is necessary for breathing. I am breathing now and i don’t believe in air.
F: It the impossibility of the contrary. What else could you be breathing.
A: That is just an air of the gaps fallacy.You just insert air into the gaps since you do not know how people breathe.
F:But how else can you account for breathing?
A:I’m just breathing because that is the way it is. I’m still going to deny the existence of air.

Facilis has obviously been studying at the Ray Comfort Apologetics School for failed Analogies.

If i hadn’t seen Facilis’ name attached to it i would have sworn it came straight from the half-mind of that mouth breather.
#352 'Tis Himself
February 28, 2009

Facilis has obviously been studying at the Ray Comfort Apologetics School for failed Analogies.

I wonder if Facilis (and, of course, Barb) think the banana is a proof of god since it’s obviously designed to fit in the anus.
#353 AnthonyK
February 28, 2009

@ AnthonyK #232

I really must check out that thread!

It doesn’t say/do what Facilis claims of it.

Dear SEF, Hey is your name Jose? I was expressing interest and wonderment in the same way creationists ask for evidence, although with my tongue firmly in my cheek.
BTW, looking at this expression, I wonder where else one is supposed to put one’s tongue (under normal circumstances)?
I’d rather perform my own circumcision rather than read his load of jesusjism.
How does one killfile people by the way? I don’t want to get to the point where as a result of reading one of his posts I go out, find the nearest christianist, and punch them in the face repeatedly – because atheist morals tell me that would be wrong.
#354 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 28, 2009

AnthonyK, killfile requires Firefox. The applet and script can be found by clicking on the dungeon in the masthead, and clicking the links therein.

FFF lie? Barb lie? They’re godbots, it comes with the territory.
#355 'Tis Himself
February 28, 2009

How does one killfile people by the way?

First, you have to be using Firefox as a browser. Then download greasemonkey. This gives a slew of Firefox add-ons. “Killfile” is one of them.
#356 AnthonyK
February 28, 2009

Atheist morality. A quick guide for christianists:

Q. Should I do X?
Personal consideration (the part religious dumbfucks miss out): What are the likely consequences of my action – will it cause harm to anyone else, or me? Will it help anyone, particularly me? (Important – am in a suitable mental state to evaluate this rationally?)
If the answer to the first question is “yes” – No X. If the answer to the second question is “no” – No X. If the answer to the 3rd question is “no” – postpone important decision.
Otherwise I do X.
See? No religion required, moral actions guaranteed.
If you send me a great deal of money, I will instruct your further – but I warn you, that’s just about it.
#357 Facilis
February 28, 2009

I found this excellent link .It’s from an atheist philosopher called Stephen Law and its about presuppositionalism.
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2009/02/presuppositionalism.html

He also links to other posts and a dialogue where he was getting pwned by an amateur Presuppositionalist called Sye TenB(of Sinner Ministries).
#358 Facilis
February 28, 2009

@anthonyK
How do you account for the laws of morality? What is the metaphysical foundation or these laws?
#359 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 28, 2009

Facilis, if you linked it, it is worthless. Your word is worthless as you have continually lied to us. You need to go away. Nobody will convert due to what you say. You are wasting everybody’s time and effort with your idiocy.
#360 Ricky
February 28, 2009

Bob L,

I live in Salt Lake City, the biggest city in Utah and a very liberal place to live. We can drink here, quite easily in fact. There are hundreds of bars in Salt Lake alone, we are not the Vatican. Internet porn usage is higher here because we have very few porn shops. Perhaps 20 in the city. The people who buy internet porn here are just saving themselves the trouble of waiting in line to buy your copy of hustler. A very large percentage of Utah is very liberal and lives in urban areas, we just have a large amount of empty space that is populated by conservatives, and they get to gerrymander the electoral votes. Salt lake city, and County went to Obama in the election, the rural areas made it go for McCain.

That’s all I have to say.
#361 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 28, 2009

Facilis the Fallicious Fool, morality is determined by man, as we have repeatedly told you. You failed again. Repeating your failures does not make them right, but it makes you look very stupid.
#362 AnthonyK
February 28, 2009

How do you account for the laws of morality? What is the metaphysical foundation or these laws?

What fucking laws?
Oh, no point. Others much greater than I have failed to have a meaningful, in any sense, conversation with you.

Hint, there is a real, practical world out there, you know.
#363 Knockgoats
February 28, 2009

Tut! There was a fascinating discussion going upthread about the ethics of intellectual property (among other things), and then Facilis and Barb have to come barging in with their lewd, filthy talk! These Christians!
#364 R
February 28, 2009

While I agree the results seem to suggest that Republicans like porn, which doesn’t surprise me, the article’s headline takes correlation as causation and, frankly, discredits the whole thing in my view.
#365 Kel
February 28, 2009

How do you account for the laws of morality? What is the metaphysical foundation or these laws?

Morality is an evolved trait. Though observing other social creatures and applying game theory to moral behaviour, it’s seen that morality is not only able to come about – it’s inevitable.

Again, you have the same problem as you do with your laws of logic, the Euthyphro Dilemma and all that! [sic]fail, please pick up a science book before continuing on being completely ignorant.
#366 Facilis
February 28, 2009

Morality is an evolved trait. Though observing other social creatures and applying game theory to moral behaviour, it’s seen that morality is not only able to come about – it’s inevitable.

*facepalm* You are talking about certain BEHAVIOURS animals engage in.
I am talking about a metaphysical basis for the objective ,immaterial, universal,absolute laws of morality.

Again, you have the same problem as you do with your laws of logic, the Euthyphro Dilemma and all that!

The Euthrypo dilemma has been debunked since Thomas Aquinas. If you wish to present it please do so.

please pick up a science book before continuing on being completely ignorant.

I just did but silly me, my science textbook has nothing about metaphysical foundations for logic and morality because silly me, ethics and metaphysics are divisions of philosophy and not science
#367 Wowbagger
February 28, 2009

facilis,

Where’s that examination of Mormonism? You made the claim it can’t account for the things your version of Xinanity does – you have to back that up.
#368 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 28, 2009

Facilis the Fallacious Fool, your imaginary god is needed for nothing, and your continued braying about his existence without physical evidence makes you look utterly idiotic and brainless. You are also boring.
#369 Kel
February 28, 2009

*facepalm* You are talking about certain BEHAVIOURS animals engage in. I am talking about a metaphysical basis for the objective ,immaterial, universal,absolute laws of morality.

You are saying that objective, immaterial, universal, absolute laws of morality exist? Demonstrate this please.

The Euthrypo dilemma has been debunked since Thomas Aquinas. If you wish to present it please do so.

Funny that most theists and philosophers today still regard it as a paradoxical dilemma as opposed to being refuted.

I just did but silly me, my science textbook has nothing about metaphysical foundations for logic and morality because silly me, ethics and metaphysics are divisions of philosophy and not science

If you don’t base philosophy on science, then you are not saying anything of substance. If you want to argue in metaphysical constructs, fine. Just don’t bring them to the real world where it all works differently.
#370 Kel
February 28, 2009

It’s going to be fun on the bun to watch [sic]fail try to demonstrate that there are universal laws of morality.
#371 Guy Incognito
February 28, 2009

You are saying that objective, immaterial, universal, absolute laws of morality exist? Demonstrate this please.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, puts ketchup on hot dogs!

QED, or some shit…
#372 Kel
February 28, 2009

“… nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.” – Richard Dawkins
#373 Rev. BigDumbChimp
February 28, 2009

Nobody, and I mean nobody, puts ketchup on hot dogs!

Exactly
#374 Patricia, OM
February 28, 2009

I have a confession Rev., when I was a young fritter brain I did put ketchup on hot dogs. *hangs head*
#375 'Tis Himself
February 28, 2009

I did put ketchup on hot dogs.

And you call yourself an atheist. As penance, you must read one chapter of The God Delusion per night until you’ve read the whole thing.
#376 Patricia, OM
February 28, 2009

So then a wiener sin isn’t as punishable as a venial sin? I don’t want to end up in hot dog hell.
#377 Rev. BigDumbChimp
February 28, 2009

You’re forgiven.

We have a hot Dog Shack here in Charleston where I’ve heard servers tell patrons who order ketchup on their dogs

“You’re grown up now, you should have out grown that.”
#378 Kel
February 28, 2009

I’m really looking forward to [sic]fail’s proof of universal moral law. I’m guessing he’ll take the Eric-path and tie the ability to make a statement on morality to a transcendent being.
#379 Pierce R. Butler
February 28, 2009

Maybe I missed it, with all the excitement here – did the Barbarian ever address the (admittedly anecdotal) evidence presented by Son of a preacher man (see #s 47, 212 & 221 in particular) regarding the effects of evangelical church attendance on “clean living”?

In the best of all possible worlds, Barb would do so, Soapm would reply to support his case in exquisite detail, and this thread would at last satisfy the numerous visitors drawn here by their searches for the “p” word.
#380 Patricia, OM
February 28, 2009

Whew! I was afraid the ketchup penance would be much worse.

Chimpy, did you see my reply to you re: wild sage? It weighs almost nothing when dried. I’d be happy to ship you some this summer when it blooms. You won’t believe how sweet it is, it’ll almost make you high. We cook with it a lot in our fire pit.
#381 Bill Dauphin
February 28, 2009

Well, I’ve completely lost track of this out-of-control thread, but it’s probably worth noting that the idea of putting a high sales tax on porn, as a way of states addressing the current financial crisis (something I’d actually support, despite being one of those “studpid” enough to pay for my smut) was apparently instantly unpopular. I guess the list of unassailable American institutions now reads baseball, apple pie, motherhood, and double penetrations. Go figure, eh?
#382 Facilis
February 28, 2009

@Kel
Moral laws exist because of the impoissiblity of the contrary. Haven’t I already proven this?
Which part of the do you deny? Do you deny that moral laws are immaterial or objective or…?
#383 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 28, 2009

More lies from Facilis the Fallacious Fool. You have proven exactly nothing to date. You have asserted a lot, but the evidence, reason, and logic have not followed. You know this, but keep trying to bluff you way, which we won’t allow. Morals come from men since god doesn’t exist. Deal with it elsewhere.
#384 Kel
February 28, 2009

Moral laws exist because of the impoissiblity of the contrary. Haven’t I already proven this?

No you haven’t, because quite clearly morality is an evolved trait that can be fully explained through studies of social animals and through game theory.

Which part of the do you deny? Do you deny that moral laws are immaterial or objective or…?

That moral law is universal. I also deny that ideas are immaterial, they are products of the mind and will die when all traces of humanity are wiped out. The mind creates, yet it stores those creations at physical entities in our brain. Kill the brain, kill the idea.
#385 Bill Dauphin
February 28, 2009

Kel:

Sipping on some Chartreuse…

I don’t care what anyone says about you; Chartreuse is teh awesome! Fix yourself a Sardonic Buddha.
#386 AnthonyK
February 28, 2009

Moral laws exist because of the impoissiblity of the contrary. Haven’t I already proven this?

Isn’t this the exact essence of facilis’s delusion?
And….no
Yes, “no” is the answer to that question.
Another, also correct, answer is “clearly not.”
#387 Facilis
February 28, 2009

That moral law is universal.

So the definition of universal in logic “applies for all people or member of a group”
I remember in another thread the pharyngulites were criticizing Catholic priests for molesting little boys.
Is molesting little children for fun universally wrong, or does it not apply for some people?
#388 Feynmaniac
February 28, 2009

Wow, facilis is just recycling his “argument” for the existence of God.

I am talking about a metaphysical basis for the objective ,immaterial, universal,absolute laws of ~~God~~ morality.

~~God~~ Moral laws exist because of the impoissiblity of the contrary.

Talk about a lazy thinker.
#389 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 28, 2009

Facilis, there is no universal logic. Morals are decided by people. Adults molesting boys is bad, because the boys cannot give proper consent. What part of that do you have trouble with, oh one of little logic?
#390 Kel
February 28, 2009

I don’t care what anyone says about you; Chartreuse is teh awesome! Fix yourself a Sardonic Buddha.

I have exactly 1 of the 3 ingredients needed to make that
#391 Wowbagger
February 28, 2009

facilis,

Still waiting on the details of your examination of Mormonism – or were you lying about having done it?
#392 Kel
February 28, 2009

So the definition of universal in logic “applies for all people or member of a group” I remember in another thread the pharyngulites were criticizing Catholic priests for molesting little boys. Is molesting little children for fun universally wrong, or does it not apply for some people?

Universal in the societal sense of the word, not in the global sense of things. I can give you several evolutionary reasons why such a practice would be universally condemned – protection of the young, an adult taking advantage of the innocent, sexual freedom of individuals – these are things that could make such a practice universally condemned in the societal sense of the word. No higher explanation is necessary.
#393 JFK, hypercharismatic telepathical knight
February 28, 2009

I’ve met plenty of theists much smarter than Facilis, who know that there’s no irrefutable proof of God, and who know that intelligent people can come to different conclusions. I wonder if they are embarrassed when they hear someone like Facilis speak up for them.
#394 Kel
February 28, 2009

Facilis, answer this. Is molesting little boys wrong contingent on their being such thing as human and molestation being a valid action? Or is molestation of little boys wrong transcendentally throughout the universe? Because to me it would seem like our moral behaviour is dictated by our circumstances. Without us, our moral law would simply not exist.
#395 Barb
February 28, 2009

JFK – your last comment, 393, insulting Facilis’ intelligence, is an insult to those who agree with you and to your cause–but I guess you aren’t alone among them.

KEL, what on earth are you trying to say? in 394 — Don’t obfuscate. sounds like you just said “our moral behavior is dictated by our circumstances” and therefore “molestation of little boys is [not] wrong transcendentally throughout the universe.”

Of course, such molestation is wrong transcendentally throughout the universe.

“Whover harms these little ones, were better a millstone were hung about his neck and he were cast into the sea.” –Jesus –transcendental messenger from the creator.
#396 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 28, 2009

Barb, as usual a pile of nonsense. Something about the religious mind that prevents coherent statements. Your god is imaginary and your bible is a work of fiction. I’m still waiting for your physical evidence to prove otherwise. Yawn, ignorant bore.
#397 Janine, Insulting Sinner
February 28, 2009

Posted by: Barb | February 28, 2009

JFK – your last comment, 393, insulting Facilis’ intelligence, is an insult to those who agree with you and to your cause–but I guess you aren’t alone among them.

Barb, that is not fair, you yelling at JFK like that. Most of us have commented repeatedly on Facilis’ lack of intelligence.
#398 'Tis Himself
February 28, 2009

“Whover harms these little ones, were better a millstone were hung about his neck and he were cast into the sea.” –Jesus –transcendental messenger from the creator.

Don’t lecture to us, Barb. Tell your fellow Christian, Pope Benedict, that hiding pedophile priests is a no-no.
#399 Patricia, OM
February 28, 2009

Barb – How dare you speak to Kel in such a bold, wanton manner, you blasphemous female!

1 Cor. 11:3 and 1 Cor. 14:34.

Keep silent. You are commanded by gawd to be under obedience.
#400 Patricia, OM
February 28, 2009

Oh, gawd – Is Barb really gonna make us drag out the god killing pregnant women, and gawd killing children Babble verses?

Barb your god is an asshole. He kills little children, pregnant women, oh and pretty much everyone else.

Give it up. Read the book. You’re an idiot.
#401 Barb
February 28, 2009

Nerd 389 wrote “Facilis, there is no universal logic. Morals are decided by people. Adults molesting boys is bad, because the boys cannot give proper consent. What part of that do you have trouble with, oh one of little logic?”

O YE of little logic, if morals are decided by people, they really can decide anything they want–and so they do. And I agree, that there is no universal logic OR universal morality OBSERVED and practiced in our world –but I believe there is transcendent true morality and logic that OUGHT to be observed in the world.

Because morals ARE decided by people these days, that’s why some people think it IS moral to “lovingly” introduce a boy to “consensual sex,” making him “feel good.” He MAY consent and who would you be to determine it was “improper?”

That’s why some radical Muslims think it’s OK and honorable, defending honor, to behead people. On cable news last night they were telling that there are far more beheadings in Islamic countries than you would think. Egyptian muslims thought it appropriate and moral to stone a 12-year old girl convert to Christ to death last year, October, I believe. And also, recently, Somalian Muslims thought it moral to stone a 13-year-old girl to death for adultery because 3 men raped her –so she must have been out wandering around to tempt them. She was on her way to her grandmother’s house. Her parents reported the rape wanting justice and the result was their daughter’s death. Those 1000 people gathered in the stadium to watch her stoning death probably thought this was “moral.” Just as in JEsus’ day, when they brought an adultress to him for stoning.

I’ve heard libs say “you can’t legislate morality.” I guess you would disagree with that as I do, but for a different reason? since you think people decide what is moral–and I think our source of the good morals and view of human worth and equality in western culture has RIGHTLY been the Bible. It was Christians who led the abolitionist movement in both England and the USA. (See film: Amazing Grace.)

Reason has been greatly aided in western culture by the Ten C’s and the Golden Rule and other teachings of Christ –as bases for our consensus about morals in the west. There used to be more consensus than today –we all believed that homosexual acts and homosexual thinking should be avoided, not acted upon; that abortion was wrong; that adultery and porn, prostitution were wrong. That certain drugs were harmful and should be illegal.

We have less consensus about sexual morality, especially, today –in our nation and in our world. Yet, we are supposed to be more educated and more enlightened.

Do you really think you will like a world that encourages (by legalization, media and education) your kids to sexual permissiveness, promiscuity, homosexuality, porn and prostitution, voyerism, exhibitionism, transgendering, cross-dressing, sado-masochistic sex, drug use, public indecency and nudity? Do you applaud that TV show I saw recently wherein a young, slightly chubby girl explains that pole dancing and stripping have made her feel good about her body? You want this for your daughters?

If you do, if you call that “moral” and not “immoral,” God help us. More and more, we are calling the immoral, moral, because we disregard the true source of morality, the God of Abraham who sent Jesus Christ. “In the last days, they will call evil good, and good, evil.”
#402 Rev. BigDumbChimp
February 28, 2009

Barb.
Do actions have a social impact?
#403 Nerd of Redhead, OM
February 28, 2009

Barb, tl;dr, but you wrote drivel, because you always write drivel. Study history. Morals were around long before your work of fiction was put to paper, over several centuries with many authors. Men have always decided what is moral and what isn’t, and still do. Your god doesn’t exist. So you can’t state morals come from god until you prove god. Get hopping, as I still waiting for my equivalent of the eternally burning bush so it can be examined by scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers to confirm divine origin. Or, more like, that it is a fake, and can be duplicated by one of the above.
#404 'Tis Himself
February 28, 2009

So, Barb, has your letter gone off to Pope Benedict yet? Hopefully you cc’ed Bill Donahue of the Catholic League. He’s very concerned with the Church’s morality.
#405 Janine, Insulting Sinner
February 28, 2009

Barb, all of the blathering bullshit falls apart when one considers that all non christian cultures also has morals. True, most are wrapped in a religious package.

Also, I would add that you know jack shit about transsexualism and transvestism. And you lck knowledge about the trust needed when one ventures into S&M. Violate the trust and you are shunned.

Barb, you are one of the most pig ignorant persons here. Please explain, without the use of your bible, why homosexuality is equated with drug use in you little brain.
#406 Sven DiMilo
February 28, 2009

why homosexuality is equated with drug use

Other than amyls, you mean?
#407 Rev. BigDumbChimp,
February 28, 2009

Do you really think you will like a world that encourages (by legalization, media and education) your kids to sexual permissiveness, promiscuity, homosexuality, porn and prostitution, voyerism, exhibitionism, transgendering, cross-dressing, sado-masochistic sex, drug use, public indecency and nudity?

I asked you this before Barb.

What is the homosexual lifestyle?
#408 Janine, Ignorant Slut
February 28, 2009

Children exposed to sex, let’s see here. Back in Medieval Europe when most people were christian by default, it seems that many people lived in one room hovels. Did the parents send the kids out of the house before they had sex?
#409 Ben
February 28, 2009

The ‘Horns are 8 and 0.

Oh, sorry, wrong thread.
#410 'Tis Himself
February 28, 2009

why homosexuality is equated with drug use

Barb is probably thinking of Ted Haggard and his love of snorting methamphetamine from the thighs of homosexual prostitutes. Barb might be a big fan of Ted. It may be Barb got her fascination with anal sex from washing Ted’s buttplug.
#411 Kel
February 28, 2009

*facepalm* Barb, go pick up a copy of The Science Of Good and Evil by Dr Shermer. When you don’t understand that basic premise of how morality is works (by equating the absense of divine command to moral subjectivism) it’s really obvious how ignorant you are on even the basics.

If you want to make an argument against our position, the least you can do is understand what that position is; not take your misunderstanding an extrapolate it to make the other side’s argument seem absurd. Morality isn’t subjective, nor is it eternal. Morality is society based – it’s an unspoken set of principles by which our actions are judged in the context of a societal standard. My genetic makeup partly fuels this, and the other part is the environment we are in. In this sense morality is provisional, changing as the population and environment changes.
#412 Notagod
March 1, 2009

It seems that there is way too much crime committed by christians for them to be claiming any moral high ground. You christians should clean your own house before pointing your dirty little fingers at others.

Also, claiming that you have insight about moral laws that apply to the whole universe is completely insane. I can imagine societies that would apply high punishment for the crime of brainwashing, which would severely limit the practice of the christian way.
#413 Douglas Watts
March 1, 2009

Barb wrote:

Because morals ARE decided by people these days, that’s why some people think it IS moral to “lovingly” introduce a boy to “consensual sex,” making him “feel good.” He MAY consent and who would you be to determine it was “improper?”

But why bring Republican Members of Congress into it?
#414 Matt Heath
March 1, 2009

In the interests of scrupulous fairness: Henry Farrell at Crooked Timber is unimpressed with this study.
#415 SEF
March 1, 2009

@ Barb #401:

I think our source of the good morals and view of human worth and equality in western culture has RIGHTLY been the Bible.

Then you “think” wrongly. Eg the Bible supports slavery and genocide.

It was Christians who led the abolitionist movement in both England and the USA.

It was Christians who led the slavery operations in both England and the USA. It was Christians who committed atrocities everywhere. There are a lot of Christians around. If the USA population (typically ignoring the indians) was almost entirely Christian, then the Christians had to be doing nearly all the bad things as well as the good things. Your assertion is vacuous.

Your assertion is also wrong on a deeper level. The Christians of the time held that it was those evil atheists and secularists who were against god-given slavery:

http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/1077.htm

We have in the United States slavebreeding states. … Slave-rearing is there looked upon as a legitimate trade, the law sanctions it, public opinion upholds it, the church does not condemn it.

What have we in America? Why we have slavery made part of the religion of the land. Yes, the pulpit there stands up as the great defender of this cursed institution, as it is called.

The church-going bell and the auctioneer’s bell chime in with each other; the pulpit and the auctioneer’s block stand in the same neighbourhood; while the blood-stained gold goes to support the pulpit, the pulpit covers the infernal business with the garb of Christianity.

More testimony from Christians of the time:

If the mischievous abolitionists had only followed the Bible instead of the godless Declaration, they would have been bound to acknowledge that human bondage was divinely ordained.

Last of all, in this great struggle, we defend the cause of God and Religion. The Abolition spirit is undeniably atheistic.

So, Barb, you are stupid (for making a ridiculous argument), ignorant (of your allegedly holy book and of the real history of the subject) and continually dishonest in pretending expertise you don’t have and ignoring challenges to your falsehoods while still trolling elsewhere.
#416 Walton
March 1, 2009

Barb,

The difficulty I have with your position is primarily epistemic. I used to be a Christian myself, and so I understand where you’re coming from. But the problem is this: As I understand it, you’re asserting that the morals of the modern world are largely wrong, and that “true” morality comes from God. Fine; this is perfectly coherent, as far as it goes. The difficulty is, though, how can we know what “God” wants? How can we actually know that the Bible is the “word of God”? Where is the empirical evidence of this?

I imagine your response will be that you don’t need empirical evidence, because you accept it on faith. Fine. But then we face a fundamental epistemic difficulty. If we don’t require evidence in order to accept a claim as true, how can we know which claims are true and which false? How do you know that it is (Trinitarian) Christians who are right, and that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons and Scientologists are all wrong? If you accept that the Bible is the Word of God simply because it says so, then on what basis do you reject the Qu’ran, the Book of Mormon or the Vedas, all of which also claim to be holy scripture? Where do you draw your distinctions between what is true and what is false?

You may say that you follow Christianity because the morality it teaches is superior. But then you are trapped in a circular argument. You believe that Christian morals are right because you believe they are dictated by God; but when I ask you how you know Christian morals are dictated by God (and that those of other religions and philosophies are not), your only reply must be that Christian morals seem “right” to you.

I’m not going to attack you, as some people here have done; I don’t enjoy trading abuse on the internet. But I simply wish to point out that, as far as I can tell, there is simply no intellectual basis for choosing one belief system over another. There is no empirical evidence that Christian claims are any more truthful than those of any other religion. What evidence do we have for the resurrection of Christ? Four accounts of uncertain date and provenance, written by non-eyewitnesses; and centuries of oral tradition (which, like Chinese whispers, can be drastically distorted over time). I don’t doubt that Jesus, as a historical figure, probably existed – but so did Mohammed and Joseph Smith, and that doesn’t make their claims of divine inspiration any more truthful.
#417 Kel
March 1, 2009

I don’t doubt that Jesus, as a historical figure, probably existed – but so did Mohammed and Joseph Smith, and that doesn’t make their claims of divine inspiration any more truthful.

Nice Walton. Very nicely put.
#418 eddie
March 1, 2009

Fundies Say The Darndest Things

Masturbation can sometimes be wrong and it can sometimes not. If you masturbate thinking about how pretty the flowers are and how you want a puppy, essentially that’s not wrong. But most times, that is not the case. I believe that when one masturbates a high percentage of the time they are fantasizing about a sexual partner therefore making masturbation lust. Lust, as the Bible states, is a sin. But masturbation is something that people in general should stay away from because it’s hard not to lust whilst doing it.

Ben Jamin A Foote (Lansing / East Lansing, MI), Facebook [Comments (194)] [2008-Jan-16]
#419 Anders
March 1, 2009

Maybe it’s more the case of democrats being computer literate enough to figure out how to download it for free

or

there are reasons why republicans are such “wankers”.
#420 eddie
March 1, 2009

They’re also boastful;

No one knows what’s happening until the flood comes (according to Matthew). And the flood is here – it refers to the apocalypse. There is a huge amount of supporting evidence on the site. For example, there is evidence for the wh0re of Babylon due to a 666 mile long penis in Mexico.

alasdair, Christianity Board [Comments (163)] [2006-Dec-02]
#421 Notagod
March 1, 2009

Muslim morals enabled 9-11, christian morals enabled the invasion of Iraq. Both were wrong and would not have occurred without religionists claiming a duty to defend their godidea.

Christianity is built on a faulty foundation, there isn’t any way to move forward when every wrong and every right can be justified within the pages of an ancient book of myths.

The Barb wonders about society without christianity but christianity is used to justify all manner of crime, that is the morality of christianity. Saying christianity is good is wrong.
#422 Matt Heath
March 1, 2009

Hey, The Thoughtful Version Of Walton is here! I like him
#423 Walton
March 1, 2009

Hey, The Thoughtful Version Of Walton is here! I like him.

There is only one Walton.

The fact that I agree with you in some areas, and disagree with you in others, does not mean that I’m only intermittently “thoughtful”. I can assure you that I’m the same person in both cases.
#424 Ichthyic
March 1, 2009

The fact that I agree with you in some areas, and disagree with you in others, does not mean that I’m only intermittently “thoughtful”. I can assure you that I’m the same person in both cases.

no, it means that the person who was trying to compliment you was mistaken.

there is no “thoughtful” version of walton.
#425 Knockgoats
March 1, 2009

the true source of morality, the God of Abraham who sent Jesus Christ – Barb

Oh, yeah, that god. The one who drowned almost everyone alive because they pissed him off – and for good measure, most animals too. The one who told Abraham to slaughter his son, and let him get far on with the preparations before backing off. The one who actually enforced the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter. The one who murdered all the firstborn of Egypt to teach Pharoah a lesson. The one who killed Job’s family in pursuit of a wager with Satan. The one who ordered the Israelites to commit genocide on several occasions. The one who orders the death penalty for wearing the wrong type of cloth. The one who sent bears to tear children to pieces for being insolent. The sado-masochistic weirdo who incarnated himself/his son and had himself tortured and killed in order to appease his anger at people because their remote ancestor ate some fruit when he’d been told not to. Yes, that god, the “true source of morality”. You’re one sick fuck, Barb.
#426 Russ from Peacehaven
March 1, 2009

It just goes to show, you can’t be too careful.
#427 kamaka
March 1, 2009

Stupid Barb is STILL on the porn thread??

Very weird kink, liking viper pits.

It’s all the writhing and biting, eh Barb?
#428 thenuge
March 1, 2009

Anthony K. you’re a retard. I’m not even christian. you’re just a retard.
#429 AnthonyK
March 1, 2009

Anthony K. you’re a retard. I’m not even christian. you’re just a retard.

Oh? And how do you come to that conclusion?
At last a proper insult!
A very low-quality one, however.
#430 kamaka
March 1, 2009

AnthonyK

WTF? Where did the lame insult come from?

Apparently, you’re doing something right, you poopy-head.
#431 AnthonyK
March 1, 2009

Yes, given everything I’ve written, “retard” is about the lamest one I could conceive of. Sniff. I’m a pharynguala failure….
#432 gaypaganunitarianagnostic
March 1, 2009

Heavy consumers of porn lack imagination
#433 kamaka
March 1, 2009

There, there, poopy-head, perhaps shit-head is in your future.

Aspire to greatness!
#434 Rev. BigDumbChimp
March 1, 2009

Heavy consumers of porn lack imagination

What about heavy creators of porn?
#435 kamaka
March 1, 2009

Heavy consumers of porn lack imagination

Oh, I’ll bet they’re imagining lots of stuff.
#436 AnthonyK
March 1, 2009

Thankyou, kamaka. That makes me feel better. Still – “retard”…let the oral-sphinctered, tri-based, onan dominated, abortion fuckup thenuge come back and insult me properly. I demand evisceration!
#437 kamaka
March 1, 2009

On a serious note, AnthonyK, “retard” is pretty vile stuff, equivalent to the N-bomb to me.

The mentally challenged are entitled to the full respect afforded any other human being.

The worthless piece of shit that called you a “retard” is the “retarded” primate.

*Insult to Primate*
#438 AnthonyK
March 1, 2009

Agreed. That’s part of the reason why it’s an insult to insults,
#439 Eric in Va
March 1, 2009

I find myself a bit embarrassed by this thread. While I am agnostic on these matters and essentially untrained beyond high school in evolutionary biology, I am really surprised at the reaction to the religous folks here.

Not everyone buys into the scientific method (although I do) and, as such, I believe it is better to find a way to accomodate, or at least understand these beliefs in a manner that doesn’t involve demanding a brand of anal lube.

I understand many here are highly trained in the scientific method that requires proof and possible falsification of results and repeatability. So what to do with those who believe just as strongly in the opposite?

When you know for a fact that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old, what do you when someone whom knows for a fact that you are wrong? They believe their fact just as strongly as you do. Neither of you will ever be persuaded to the other side by proof since the scientific method does not apply to both parties.

Fundies know in their bones and believe in their hearts they are right. You all (Ya’ll?) feel the same.

Moral origins and actions are a bone of contention. I would suggest this is a common ground for discussion as I believe there is definately right and wrong. We are not arguing fossils then, we are arguing, well, right and wrong.

We have to understand that there are people who believe it is right to believe in god. These people do not believe in the scientific method.
#440 Rev. BigDumbChimp
March 1, 2009

Eric have you been introduced to Matt Nisbet?
#441 Eric In Va
March 1, 2009

Rev.

No, I came upon this forum through fstdt.com about a week ago and loved it but was a bit taken aback by this thread.
#442 kamaka
March 1, 2009

I find myself a bit embarrassed by this thread.

Ummm, embarrassed by this thread? Really? A porn thread on an atheist web-blog? Why are you reading this, why are you posting here, oh sensitive one? Are you embarrassed or tittilated?

I suggest you read here for a while, a long while, before posting. I can tell you are searching for answers to the conflicts within.

If you read for a while, perhaps you will find the answers you seek.
#443 Kel
March 1, 2009

Thanks for pointing out the obvious there Eric. And I’m sure that those who believe that a computer run on electricity and those who believe that a computer is powered by angelic love are never going to find that middle ground either… because there is no middle ground to be found.

Moral origins and actions are a bone of contention.

In the same way that there’s a controversy between creationism and evolution.
#444 Eric In Va
March 1, 2009

Kamaka,

The reason I am a bit embarrassed is because of the treatment offered up to 2 people that believe in their bones that they are just as right as you.

I am regretting posting now as I have a feeling I am about to suffer the same fate. But then, I have a soft spot in my heart for the underdogs!

Seriously, there is no arguing that you all came off as a bit harsh.
#445 Kel
March 1, 2009

Seriously, there is no arguing that you all came off as a bit harsh.

This is not the first thread in which we’ve interacted with either of those two. We’ve spent thousands of posts putting up with facilis’ delusion that he thinks he’s proven god.
#446 kamaka
March 1, 2009

This is fair warning, Eric, read before you post or your unclear thinking will invite a verbal beating.

Consider Kel’s comment a shot over the bow.
#447 Kel
March 1, 2009

Oh yeah, and Barb spent a post talking up her husband being a doctor while constantly deriding those who studied biology, and concluded she had the grounds by which to criticise evolution – then asserted that evolution should turn a dog into a cat.
#448 AnthonyK
March 1, 2009

We have to understand that there are people who believe it is right to believe in god. These people do not believe in the scientific method.

Yes but….and it’s in the but that the difficulties lie. This whole site is dedicated to explain it.
Very briefly religious “knowledge” is very different from what we know about science and the natural world.
You will find many, many discussion, often by eloquent experts, on this topic.
As for the Christians who come here, please don’t be fooled. They aren’t here to learn, to discuss seriously, or to positively interact – they’re here because they engage, mostly, in a tiresome Christian activity known as “apologetics” – a theological defence of their religion, and something they feel they have to do. Heaven-points, if you will. It’s really the same as the bible-bashers on the street ccrner, saving their souls by trying to steal yours.
Barb is one of those. If some of us, me included, are very abusive to them at times, it’s because they are dishonest in their motives.
Their beliefs are important to them, but we don’t want them here. They also tend to be homophobic, boring, and stupid. And above all, the idiots chose to reject the real glory of (their God’s) creation – things like, oh, evolution.
That’s why we mock and abuse them.
Unfortunately, some of them seem to like it.
#449 Erin In Va
March 1, 2009

Kel,

There has to be some common ground with the fundies. The alternative is what we saw in this thread.
#450 AnthonyK
March 1, 2009

And there is no “common ground with fundies” I think they are evil deluded fuckwits. No possible dialogue there.
#451 Nerd of Redhead, OM
March 1, 2009

Eric, we will respond to you as you respond to us. Barb calls us names and makes unfounded accusations, so we respond in kind. FFF is an idiot who is here as a missionary to show us his god, and is too dumb to realize he has been outclassed since his first attempt. With him, we are trying to get through to him that his efforts are unwanted. He is a slow learner.
#452 JJ
March 1, 2009

It would be more interesting if the subscriptions were broken down into “what kind” of porn are actually consumed. What percentage goes into straight/gay porn sites? Extreme porn? Interracial porn? Amateur porn?
#453 kamaka
March 1, 2009

The reason I am a bit embarrassed is because of the treatment offered up to 2 people that believe in their bones that they are just as right as you.

You missed my point. Your bones no longer believe, do they?
#454 Ken Cope
March 1, 2009

There has to be some common ground with the fundies. The alternative is what we saw in this thread.

What common ground with the fundies? They hope to go to heaven, where they can fill their nostrils with the scent of souls of the damned flamb�, where it’s good, good that what they worship tortures unbelievers like us for eternity for not being as bugfuck crazy as they are.

“Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.” –Mark Twain
#455 Kel
March 1, 2009

There has to be some common ground with the fundies. The alternative is what we saw in this thread.

With someone argues that morality is divine command, how can there be middleground? It leaves anyone who takes this view with two choices – to consider the moral base under which society has changed as immoral, or to break the thinking that morality is as commanded by God.
#456 Wowbagger
March 1, 2009

There has to be some common ground with the fundies. The alternative is what we saw in this thread.

Not when it comes to science there doesn’t. Lies and ignorance are not excused simply because they are the result of a person’s religious belief.

Our more distant predecessors didn’t sit idly by when the religious claimed biblical support for slavery; our more recent predecessors refused to tolerate those who claimed the bible forbade interracial marriage. Some of us are still fighting today so that any adult, no matter what their gender, can be legally married to another adult – despite what people claim their religion has to say about that.

As they say, you are entitled to your own opinions; you are not entitled to your own facts.
#457 Ken Cope
March 1, 2009

[Fallacious Fuckwit Facilis] is a slow learner.

Nerd of Redhead, OM, you are, as ever, generous to a fault.
#458 Rev. BigDumbChimp
March 1, 2009

Eric,

The point is we’ve been through this so many times that it is blatantly obvious that these fools chose to remain fools. At some point there is not benefit to being nice to a willfully ignorant fool.
#459 Kel
March 1, 2009

facilis & barb – 2fundies1cup
#460 Sastra
March 1, 2009

Eric in Va #439 wrote:

We have to understand that there are people who believe it is right to believe in god. These people do not believe in the scientific method.

Well, they do, and they don’t.

Most theists have some understanding and appreciation of the scientific method, and they respect its results a great deal. You cannot persuade someone to change their mind by convincing them that they are going against your values. You can only do it by persuading them that they are going against their own values. And most of them value (or think they value) science, honesty, and following the evidence where it leads.

Ironically, the fact that theists recognize the obvious power of scientific explanation is what lead to Creationism. They want to give God a meaningful role in science. That desire will be their undoing, for God has no meaningful role to play in science. And here comes the razor.

As for appealing to common moral values, I agree with you there. But I don’t think we can appeal to morals in place of appealing to science. I think we need both approaches.
#461 Eric In Va
March 1, 2009

Ok…I get the self abuse thing and the feeling like they are commanded by god thing as to the underlying motivations for those two but…holy crap! Just wow.

I admit I am guilty of posting a bit early here but I have been reading daily for a week so I would argue I am on the cusp.

Anyway, I am open to reason (especially scientific) and understand that you guys take this stuff seriously. There is however, well never mind.

See? I am being self censored out of fear of being identified and my anal lube preference being publically disclosed.
#462 AnthonyK
March 1, 2009

Also, it’s theraputic to be really rude, sometimes. And it’s fucking good fun. And God tells me to do it
#463 kamaka
March 1, 2009

There is however, well never mind.

See? I am being self censored out of fear of being identified and my anal lube preference being publically disclosed

Oh, so you do understand.
#464 Rev. BigDumbChimp
March 1, 2009

See? I am being self censored out of fear of being identified and my anal lube preference being publically disclosed.

Ok. That is fucking funny, funny.

pun intended.
#465 Eric In Va
March 1, 2009

Kel,

“2fundies1cup” LOL! I have made it my mission to never see that as you can’t unsee it.

I am still recovering from goatse.cx…yet strangely attract…ahhh never mind…need to self censor again!
#466 Sastra
March 1, 2009

Erin (Eric?) in Va #449 wrote:

There has to be some common ground with the fundies. The alternative is what we saw in this thread.

Sure, there’s common ground with fundies, and discussions that manage to find it. What drives us crazy is usually their inconsistency. But I think one of the things you’ve seen in this thread has to do with grudge matches against specific theists. I haven’t read through all the comments, though.

Besides, any thread that starts out talking about porn is bound to get down and dirty.
#467 AnthonyK
March 1, 2009

Careful now, one week and you’re getting anal already? You’re worse than Barb. Oh, I see, you’re a fan of Christian pornography…and you have to come here to get it
#468 Sven DiMilo
March 1, 2009

Common ground with fundies:
Pizza
Beer
Coffee
Crackers that are actually transubstantiated chunks of Jesus’s flesh

OK, not that last one.
#469 Kel
March 1, 2009

“2fundies1cup” LOL! I have made it my mission to never see that as you can’t unsee it.

It’s just as well you can’t unsee it, lest you make the same mistake twice. The worst is when one hides an embedded link to lemon party that you can’t click away from. It’s twice as bad as being rick roll’d
#470 llewelly
March 1, 2009

Eric in Va | March 1, 2009 9:32 PM:

Moral origins and actions are a bone of contention. I would suggest this is a common ground for discussion as I believe there is definately right and wrong. We are not arguing fossils then, we are arguing, well, right and wrong.

Er, there are definitely fossils as well, and some of them are definitely hundreds of millions of years old, and they definitely indicate common descent, and evolution by natural selection.
So I must ask – what does your comparison to fossils mean?
#471 Rev. BigDumbChimp
March 1, 2009

Common ground with fundies:

And Bob Denver.

because everyone loves Bob Denver.

right

everyone

anyone

right?
#472 Eric In Va
March 1, 2009

Good point Satstra and well taken. Everyone else, please don’t think I am some fundie troll. I have made my share of derogetory comments over on fstdt.com.

I simply didn’t understand the history with the fundies involved in this thread. I guess my point is that I had the balls to question you all. How many others came to this thread and read it and thought WTF and never said anything? It’s all quotable.

And why did I feel the need to come to the fundies defense? This is something I would never have expected. I am just a normal human.
#473 AnthonyK
March 1, 2009

I knew it, Rev. Tou’re a fundie sleeper.
#474 Rev. BigDumbChimp
March 1, 2009

I simply didn’t understand the history with the fundies involved in this thread.

Well, it’s not just the ones in this thread.
#475 Ichthyic
March 1, 2009

right?

awww, go on little buddy.
#476 Ichthyic
March 1, 2009

I am being self censored out of fear of being identified and my anal lube preference being publically disclosed.

well, out with it.

never know when that information might come in handy.
#477 Wowbagger
March 1, 2009

Thwack! [Whomps Rev BDC with sailor hat]
#478 Eric In Va
March 1, 2009

Rev.

If you want fundie threads go to raptureready.com and prepare to have your head explode.

I hope I made a point. Some of my best friends are fundies.
#479 tony
March 1, 2009

Eric

you can approach this blog (and indeed life) in two modes:

modus 1: You hold a position based upon a well founded hypothesis supported by voluminous and multi-disciplinary ‘facts’ – you may argue from this position ‘as if the hypothesis was fact’ (more or less). You should, of course, be prepared to provide supporting evidence (links to peer-reviewed papers, studies, and such) if asked or questioned. You are also prepared to modify the hypothesis is sufficient facts are discovered which refute the existing hypothesis. (FYI – this is science)

modus 2: You hold a position formed from observation and internal bias, that is generally supported by a variety of evidence, but which cannot be supported in a formal manner (as Modus 1). This is opinion, and is subject to dispute. (an example is your political position – there is no right political stance – all are correct in some manner and for some givens, but wrong for others.)

We all jump on the likes of Barb & Facilis, since they profess to argue a modus 1 position – but are in actuality arguing a modus 2 position, since they can provide zero evidence for their opinions.

Hope this helps.

please join in. (and a hint — listening helps. reading helps too. there are lots of people here who are extremely smart and extremely knowledgable in many many domains)

We also don’t like ‘concern trolling’ (which is where you were beginning to head)
#480 Rev. BigDumbChimp
March 1, 2009

If you want fundie threads go to raptureready.com and prepare to have your head explode.

Been there, done that, submitted quotes and have had head explode.

We’re a seasoned bunch here.
#481 Eric In Va
March 1, 2009

Ichthyic,

Ya can’t argue with Sterno.
#482 AnthonyK
March 1, 2009

never know when that information might come in handy

Yes, careful what you say. Walton made a post last week which may well come back to haunt him if he’s too tedious…coincidentally, he has been a bit better, of late.
#483 Ichthyic
March 1, 2009

The point is we’ve been through this so many times that it is blatantly obvious that these fools chose to remain fools. At some point there is not benefit to being nice to a willfully ignorant fool.

ah, yet another chance to whip out my favorite Jefferson quote:

“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.”

-Thomas Jefferson

Eric, ridicule has a large role to play here. Marginalization of fundie nonsense, and attempts to be taken seriously at the political table being the goal.

does it work?

youbetchya:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/ridicule_is_a_useful_tool.php
#484 Ichthyic
March 1, 2009

Ya can’t argue with Sterno.

“Sterno: It’s not just for drinking!”

:p
#485 Wowbagger
March 1, 2009

<Australian Accent>Sterno? What the bloody hell’s that? We don’t have it here.</Australian Accent>
#486 Ichthyic
March 1, 2009

more on the value of ridicule…

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/point_and_laugh_1.php

…and it was ridicule (and fear of much more) that prompted both Dover and Kansas to oust their school board reps that were pushing for teaching “intelligent design”.

Also worked to great effect in Florida a couple years back.
#487 Eric In Va
March 1, 2009

Ridicule did not work for the last eight years. In another four it may not work again. There has to be some other way.
#488 tony
March 1, 2009

Eric

We have to work to make sure ridicule is the default response to such insanity.

When a Governor openly admits to participating in an exorcism, when another Governor belongs to a cult led by a witch-finder, and when the leading lights of a movement look to a bloviating lard-ass with a penchant for Dominican republic prostitutes for their message: ridicule is indeed the only response.
#489 Wowbagger
March 1, 2009

Seriously – Sterno? What is it?
#490 Rev. BigDumbChimp
March 1, 2009

Sterno

terno Canned Heat is a fuel made from denatured and jellied alcohol. It is designed to be burned directly from its can. Its primary use is in the food service industry for buffet heating. Other uses are for camp stoves and as an emergency heat source. Due to Sterno’s popularity, the term has become a genericized trademark, often used to refer to many similarly appearing products.

It also makes cool hot air “balloons” if you string a tin foil cup under a plastic garbage bag and lite it.

Just be careful it doesn’t land on your neighbors roof.
#491 Sven DiMilo
March 1, 2009

Sterno: canned heat. But that shit’s not getting anywhere near the asshole of anybody I love.
#492 Eric In Va
March 1, 2009

I hear ya Tony. But what if the people think it’s a good thing to cast out demons? Do you tell them they are assholes for believing such an insane thing?

I think the reason I started posting is because it seems to me, so many here have been so surrounded by reason and logic they don’t know how to respond in a cival manner to people like my grandmother. She REALLY believed man never landed on the moon because you can’t go there if you are still alive since that is up in heaven.

She was one of the kindest, best (and smartest) humans I have ever known. And I loved her. Should I have ridiculed her?
#493 Sven DiMilo
March 1, 2009

Should I have ridiculed her?

Did she troll Pharyngula?
#494 Rev. BigDumbChimp
March 1, 2009

Sterno: canned heat. But that shit’s not getting anywhere near the asshole of anybody I love.

WHOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I must have missed something. Something terrifying.
#495 Wowbagger
March 1, 2009

Thanks for the Sterno info – though it disturbs me that anyone would drink the stuff…
#496 tony
March 1, 2009

Eric

I hear you. Sometimes it seems as if the kindest thing to do is to let someone continue in their delusion.

But! You need to identify when that delusion is harmelss or not.

A harmless delusion (such as your Grandma’s) won’t really harm anyone or anything. It might cause her Grandkids some cognitive dissonance (listen to grandma – except for this or that or this other).

The problem we have, here on this blog, and whenever we try to communicate factually, is that harm is being done when delusion takes precedence over reason.

We simply must use every tool at our disposal to ensure such delusion is never confused for sense, and is never considered to be a reasonable position for any sensible or reasonable person to hold.

That’s why we need to ridicule the stance of Palin, and Jindal, and even your dear old Grandma, if she was in a position of influence. we are not ridiculing the person. We are exposing their stated position to ridicule, exactly as it deserves.
#497 Eric In Va
March 1, 2009

All,

Thanks for listening. I probably came off as a bit naive but hell, we have no moral basis so bend over and break out the sterno. I will leave the lighter option open to each of you.

Night
#498 Rev. BigDUmbChimp
March 1, 2009

I hear ya Tony. But what if the people think it’s a good thing to cast out demons? Do you tell them they are assholes for believing such an insane thing?

People are not assholes for believing in such things.

People are assholes when confronted with the lack of evidence for their belief and the massive evidence against their belief and they chose to ignore or deny it. Repeatedly.

Then they tell the one holding the big fat bag of evidence that they are wrong.
#499 Nerd of Redhead, OM
March 1, 2009

Drinking Sterno is bad. Methanol is added to denature the ethanol, and drinking too much methanol can cause blindness.
#500 Sven DiMilo
March 1, 2009

You want to put what in my what?

Aaaa, a little methanol never hurt anyboodlyboodlybopkashlizzzzzzzzzzzz
#501 Kel
March 1, 2009

There’s a difference between the likes of facilis believing that God is the source of logic / morality, and facilis arguing that God is the source of logic and morality. Post after post facilis would respond to any criticism of that with “if you can’t account for logic, how can you say my position is illogical?” thus continuing on his arrogant faux-intellectual position post after post. Likewise Barb tried to argue on scientific grounds against evolution – by concocting a straw-man representation of evolution whereby evolution is a cat turning into a dog.

If they keep these beliefs to themselves, they are perfectly entitled to expect to stay ridicule-free. But both of them have jumped on a science forum to argue their ridiculous points, of course they are going to be ridiculed for doing so. Especially when neither of them seems willing to even slightly compromise their pre-conceived notions.
#502 Eric In Va
March 1, 2009

Rev.

I never said my Grandmother wasn’t an asshole. I did say I loved her though.

ps…I didn’t realise my email didn’t get displayed with my posts…it’s iamherem@yahoo.com.

Hunkering down against the snowstorm. Night all…Go Nats!
#503 Ichthyic
March 1, 2009

Ridicule did not work for the last eight years

hello?

did you entirely miss the links I provided?

that it didn’t work to oust Bush for war crimes and constitutional violatins does NOT mean it never works, or has no value.
#504 Rev. BigDumbChimp
March 1, 2009

I never said my Grandmother wasn’t an asshole. I did say I loved her though.

ps…I didn’t realise my email didn’t get displayed with my posts…it’s iamherem@yahoo.com.

Hunkering down against the snowstorm. Night all…Go Nats!

Go Nats?

Where? To the bottom of the NL east?

Go Braves.

Oh and fyi as a self appointed intratubes guru, posting your email in threads is bad juju.

Spam Bots and less ethical types will have a field day with it.
#505 Wowbagger
March 1, 2009

Drinking Sterno is bad. Methanol is added to denature the ethanol, and drinking too much methanol can cause blindness.

Yeah, serious boozers who can’t get anything else drink methylated spirits in Australia.
#506 Ichthyic
March 2, 2009

Aaaa, a little methanol never hurt anyboodlyboodlybopkashlizzzzzzzzzzzz

ROFLMAO!

uh, yes, just to be clear, since Tony wasn’t, I do believe he was joking.

Sterno is not good for ingestion at either end of the digestive tract.

However, there ARE an unfortunately large number of methanol drinkers out there (yes, even here in Kiwiland).

Methanol is typically much cheaper than ethanol, and so one often sees methanol consumption in poorer communities.

http://www.safety-council.org/info/OSH/methanol.htm
#507 utahskeptic
March 2, 2009

I love how everyone acts like theres no possible way that using porn has a strong relationship with a persons attitude towards women. In surveys asking how many men would rape a woman if they would not get caught, watching porn was the only major predictor in who would say that they would (the number was well over 50% over all though, very depressing). When you reduce women to being sub human porn becomes very easy to deal with.

Also, most of those mormons are getting married when they are very young. It is really their only chance at getting some sexual variety- they arent supposed to have oral sex at all either.
#508 Rev. BigDumbChimp
March 2, 2009

I love how everyone acts like theres no possible way that using porn has a strong relationship with a persons attitude towards women.

What about women who use porn?
#509 Kel
March 2, 2009

I love how everyone acts like theres no possible way that using porn has a strong relationship with a persons attitude towards women. In surveys asking how many men would rape a woman if they would not get caught, watching porn was the only major predictor in who would say that they would (the number was well over 50% over all though, very depressing). When you reduce women to being sub human porn becomes very easy to deal with.

Was that a correlative or causal link? And what has the effect been on rape in society since the internet has brought an increase with pornographic material?
#510 Rev. BigDumbChimp
March 2, 2009

In surveys asking how many men would rape a woman if they would not get caught, watching porn was the only major predictor in who would say that they would (the number was well over 50% over all though, very depressing).

I wonder where you get your numbers from.

And what percentage of people who “use” porn makes up the “would rape if they wouldn’t get caught”?

“Only major factor”. I also wonder what other predictors you could match with that group. History of family trouble. Abuse. Alcoholism in the family. Sociopathic diagnosis.
#511 Rick R
March 2, 2009

Tony @479- “(and a hint — listening helps. reading helps too. there are lots of people here who are extremely smart and extremely knowledgable in many many domains)”

Dropping another cyber-love note to Sastra. *sigh*
#512 tony
March 2, 2009

RickR; SHHH! It’s a secret!
#513 Rick R
March 2, 2009

utahskeptic @507- “I love how everyone acts like theres no possible way that using porn has a strong relationship with a persons attitude towards women. In surveys asking how many men would rape a woman if they would not get caught, watching porn was the only major predictor in who would say that they would (the number was well over 50% over all though, very depressing). When you reduce women to being sub human porn becomes very easy to deal with.

Also, most of those mormons are getting married when they are very young. It is really their only chance at getting some sexual variety- they arent supposed to have oral sex at all either.”

There aren’t any women in my fave porn. What does that do to your hypothesis?
#514 Rick R
March 2, 2009

Tony- “RickR; SHHH! It’s a secret!”

I meant myself. *blush*
#515 Rick R
March 2, 2009

Rev @510- “And what percentage of people who “use” porn makes up the “would rape if they wouldn’t get caught”?”

And what percentage are religious? Cuz this sounds exactly like the fundie projection of “immorality” onto atheists who, y’know, don’t believe in the big cop in the sky.

Without the BigCop, why, a person is liable to do ANYTHING.

Anything at all.
#516 Rev. BigDumbChimp
March 2, 2009

There aren’t any women in my fave porn. What does that do to your hypothesis?

Obviously you are discriminating against women. Why are you anti-women’s rights?
#517 Rick R
March 2, 2009

“When you reduce women to being sub human porn becomes very easy to deal with.”

What does this sentence even mean? So, porn is difficult to deal with if you see women as fully human?
It really is possible to see women as fully human and equal in every way, and still have a “Me Tarzan, you Jane” relationship in the bedroom, if that is what you both desire. (Emphasis on that last bit)

If you really reduce women to subhuman status, you have much much bigger problems than “using porn”.
#518 teammarty
March 2, 2009

That explains why Mary carey is a Republican.
Or should that be Republickan.
#519 Andy
March 2, 2009

The comments remind me of an old lawyer joke, which for this issue may be switched to the fundies.

What does a fundy use for birth control?

Their personality.

If their personality is keeping the bed from bouncing, so to speak, then maybe a little foray into the internet porn is what is called for and the idealistic side of capitalism is what is keeping them paying the fees. Ha.
#520 Bill Dauphin
March 2, 2009

Sven (@491):

Sterno may be canned heat, but only Canned Heat is Canned Heat.
#521 AnthonyK
March 2, 2009

Ridicue is a vital weapon against truly stupid belief systems, the ones that manage to spill out of peoples’ heads and make a mess on the carpet.
Anyone posting here can be ridiculed. It takes a rather poor mind to post intellectually pretentious posts here and then to complain about the drubbing they receive. I sometimes put such posts here, but the intention is humorous and if I get the piss taken out of me, fine (though I do object, on many levels, to being called a “retard” – see above).
You’ll notice, Eric, that you weren’t abused yourself for expressing your opinions, though there’s always the chance that someone apparently sincere and enquiring like yourself may morph seamlessly into the kind or arrogant lackwit who will get it with both barrels.
You did not do so.
As for sterno, and methanol generally, it can have its uses – though only if you really do wish to get blind drunk.
#522 AnthonyK
March 2, 2009

Lawyer joke:
Did you know that they have started replacing lab rats with lawyers in experiments? It’s because there are some things which rats just won’t do.
#523 Bill Dauphin
March 2, 2009

Rev BDC:

In surveys asking how many men would rape a woman if they would not get caught, watching porn was the only major predictor in who would say that they would (the number was well over 50% over all though, very depressing).

I wonder where you get your numbers from.

I’m with you, Rev. I note that a huge majority of men “watch porn,” if you define “porn” and “watch” broadly enough (i.e., if you include men who’ve checked out a porn site out of casual curiousity, or those who occasionally pick up a Playboy at the news stand), so any list of men who’ve been identified for some nasty trait will predictably include a large percentage who also say they “watch porn.” But, of course, correlation does not imply causation… and this is especially true when the correlation is spurious to begin with.

In addition, you have to consider the explicitly hypothetical nature of the question in evaluating the answer: Ask “would you [commit any heinous act related to a basic universal human appetite] if you knew you wouldn’t get caught,” and you’ve put the respondent into the headspace of fantasy role-play, rather than reality. The “if you knew you wouldn’t get caught” conditional inherent severs the scenario from reality. Plenty of folks might answer “yes” not because they’re inherently monstrous, but just because they’ve got the requisite imagination to play with the idea of being the bad guy. It certainly does not mean that any significant fraction of the people actually would commit the heinous act in any plausible real scenario.

As a somewhat oblique aside, the other conclusion from this sort of survey is that fear of “getting caught” (which in most respondents’ minds probably includes social disapprobation as well as formal legal consequences) is a powerful factor in constraining the way individual appetities and desires are expressed in actual behavior. This is anathema to right-wingers and L-word-people: The notion that society exists, and its norms (expressed both informally and formally) influence individuals’ behavior to the benefit of society itself… which is to say, to the benefit of the greater number of individuals in favor of privileged minorities of individuals. The same people who are eager to ask the “if you wouldn’t get caught” question as a way to demonize “liberal” sexuality would never ask corporations about all the ways they’d fuck over their customers (and the public at large) if they “knew they wouldn’t get caught.”
#524 Bill Dauphin
March 2, 2009

Errata (@523):

In the second paragraph, this…

The “if you knew you wouldn’t get caught” conditional inherent severs…

…should be…

The “if you knew you wouldn’t get caught” conditional inherently severs…

Additionally, my statement that…

…the benefit of the greater number of individuals in favor of privileged minorities of individuals…

…would probably have been clearer in its intent if I’d said…

…the benefit of the greater number of individuals ~~in favor of~~instead of privileged minorities of individuals…
#525 tony
March 2, 2009

would never ask corporations about all the ways they’d fuck over their customers (and the public at large) if they “knew they wouldn’t get caught.”

Are you seriously saying that corporations don’t currently fuck over their customers? Many corporations would make Torquemada look like the poster child for restraint and civility.
#526 KI
March 2, 2009

Is that sterno stuff as good as turpentine? Yeehah, break out the party likker! Dude, you’ve totally got to try this stuff, I’m, like totally blind!
#527 Bill Dauphin
March 2, 2009

Are you seriously saying that corporations don’t currently fuck over their customers?

Not at all. I’m seriously ridiculing the notion, promoted by many on the right, that if “the state” would only leave corporations the hell alone and let the market work, they would always produce “good” results. More broadly, the notion that if each individual (including corporations, which both law and conservative ideology hold to be persons) acts in its own parochial best interest, the net result of all those individual expressions of self-interest will be the greatest good.

As you suggest, experience tells us that corporations will fuck over their customers and the broader public to precisely the extent that we let them get away with it… or in other words, to the extent they “know they won’t get caught.”

What I was noting (once again, for the 1.973×10¹⁹th time) was the bizarre intersection of “social conservatism” (i.e., demonization of personal behavior that indulges “earthly pleasure” at the expense of a “higher values”… which is to say, essentially a religious focus on “sin,” regardless of whether it’s acknowledged as religious or not) and the secular ideology of conservatism/libertarianism, which celebrates the individual entirely at the expense of the very same kind of broader societal values that social conservatism ostensibly promotes.

Somehow these strange bedfellows always end up on the same side of the argument, but it’s a miracle to me that their psyches can stand the shear stress (no, that’s not a typo: I do mean shear, in the mechanical sense, not sheer) of holding two such contradictory positions.

And so it comes to pass that conservatives are happy to use the “if they knew they wouldn’t get caught” argument to demonize “perverts” (which apparently means anyone who expresses his/her sexuality in any non-god-approved manner), yet won’t apply the implied principle of that argument (i.e., that social norms [aka regulations] have a beneficial effect on individual behavior) to their beloved corporations.

As for the extent to which corporations currently fuck over the rest of us, I’d say it’s directly attributable to the political success of conservatives’ anti-regulation (arguably anti-social, in the precise sense of that term) agenda from Reagan through Bush 43. I have some hope we’ve at least begun to roll back that agenda, though I’m under no illusion that change will be easy or quick.
#528 AnthonyK
March 2, 2009

Careful now, Bill. You’re getting perilously close to a discussion on Libert…no, no, no.
But surely, and strenuously avoiding that particular cesspit of foolishness, not all corporations/organisations do or would or want to fuck over the rest of us? Personally, there are plenty of things I wouldn’t do, even if I could “get away” with them, and to an extent even Big Business is an individual, and human enterprise.
#529 Sven DiMilo
March 2, 2009

Bill (@#520): Right you are! Just to close the circle:

Canned Heat…took the name from Tommy Johnson’s 1928 “Canned Heat Blues”, a song about an alcoholic who had desperately turned to drinking Sterno

“There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an Sterno binge.’ -Dr. Hunter S. DiMilo
#530 Bill Dauphin
March 2, 2009

AnthonyK (@528):

But surely, and strenuously avoiding that particular cesspit of foolishness, not all corporations/organisations do or would or want to fuck over the rest of us?

I actually don’t believe all corporations are invariably evil, but defending them would’ve been tangential to the point I was trying to make in my reply to tony.

I don’t think corporations are any more or less “self-interested” than individuals… but their “self-interest” is much more narrowly focused on generating wealth (which is their sole reason for existing), while individual humans often express interest not directly related to monetary gain.

The thing is, corporations have vastly more power than individual humans do to promote their self interest to the exclusion of others’ interests. And while I believe that corporations’ behavior is influenced by the social values of their leaders (and in a more diffuse way, by the aggregate social values of their stockholders), such that corporations led by “good guys” tend to be relatively “good” corporate “guys,” their prime directive (to increase the value of the owners’ investment) often implies that their unregulated self-interest will produce behavior that is (at best) not perfectly aligned with the broader social good… no matter how high-minded the CEO’s intentions.

So yes, I believe corporations can exercise values-based self-restraint, just as you and I can… but owing to their corporate nature and their purely commercial raison d’etre, they’re somewhat less likely to honor nonmonetary values. And owing to their massive economic power (compared to actual individuals), they’re significantly more likely (if left unregulated) to get their way… even when “their way” isn’t good for the majority of individual citizens.

I don’t want corporations killed or even injured; I just want sensible regulations to help balance their imperative to create wealth (which I don’t hold to be an inherently bad thing) with broader (and not exclusivly monetary) values of society.

Back to the original question:

Personally, there are plenty of things I wouldn’t do, even if I could “get away” with them…

Sure; me too. But (assuming you’re an intelligent person with a working imagination) there are probably things you’d never do in real life but would entertain doing, in a purely hypothetical sense (i.e., in fantasy-space), if they were divorced from any real-world consequences. There are plenty of people, both men and women (though I’m not implying you, personally, are such a person, and I am certainly not), who find rape fantasies stimulating, but would never want to rape (or be raped) in real life. Most people (but apparently not all conservatives) understand that the relationship between what turns us on to think about or look at and what we want to actually do isn’t so linear.

As a relatively tame, noncontroversial example, I love reading about, and hearing talks about, and watching movies about mountaineering… but you couldn’t get me to climb a high mountain (i.e., any activity that deserves the name climbing rather than simply hiking) for any amount of money. The intellectual/emotional interest has no connection to any intended behavior.
#531 speedwell
March 2, 2009

The market of public opinion is as important as any other market to an “L-word” supporter. We are fond of the statement, “My right to swing my arms around ends at your face.” The whole idea of “L-ism” is to avoid the trespasses of force and fraud against the liberty interests of individuals. Corporations, not being individuals except in the legal-fictional sense, cannot truly have “rights.”
#532 Bill Dauphin
March 2, 2009

Oh, and another thing (re me@530):

There are plenty of people, both men and women (though I’m not implying you, personally, are such a person, and I am certainly not), who find rape fantasies stimulating, but would never want to rape (or be raped) in real life.

In fact, it may be (though I’m neither a sociologist nor psychologist, so my opinion is worth what you’ve paid for it) that some (most?) of the people who find such out-of-bounds fantasies stimulating do so precisely because they’re so far removed from their real-life values or behavior. Maybe people like far-out porn or sexual role-play for the same reason some folks like SF or comic books: Because it’s so completely different from real life.

In any case, it does not follow, as the original “if you knew you wouldn’t get caught” comment seeks to suggest, that people who answer “yes” to such a poll are all latent rapists.
#533 Bill Dauphin
March 2, 2009

speedwell (@531):

Corporations, not being individuals except in the legal-fictional sense, cannot truly have “rights.”

Curious, isn’t it? This should be a point of irreconcilable difference between L-word-people and mainstream pro-business conservatives, yet somehow the two groups invariably make common cause against even the relatively mild version of “the Left” found in mainstream American politics.

This is what puzzles me about the American right: It seems to embrace the worst (from my left-of-center point of view) doctrines of three constituencies (“moral-values” conservatives, secular pro-business conservatives, and L-word-arians) that ought to be intractably at odds. How is this Axis alliance of U.S. politics maintained? ‘Tis a puzzlement!
#534 speedwell
March 2, 2009

@ Bill Dauphin: Yes, it is puzzling. Many times I wonder if I shouldn’t call myself something other than “libertarian.” “Classical liberal” would do it if I was in Europe, but it doesn’t have the same effect in the United States of Ignorance.
#535 marilove
March 2, 2009

Eh, I’ve paid for porn, usually because it’s just easier, and because you can get high-quality videos you can save, but only a very few select sites are worth that on OCCASION. I also download plenty of free porn, so it all balances out
#536 Sven DiMilo
March 2, 2009

Somebody over at Berube’s made an apt and witty distinction between yacht-club Republicans and Evinrude Republicans.
#537 SC, OM
March 2, 2009

In fact, it may be (though I’m neither a sociologist nor psychologist, so my opinion is worth what you’ve paid for it) that some (most?) of the people who find such out-of-bounds fantasies stimulating do so precisely because they’re so far removed from their real-life values or behavior. Maybe people like far-out porn or sexual role-play for the same reason some folks like SF or comic books: Because it’s so completely different from real life.

This I agree with. Or it’s just a sexual thing that has no necessary relation to “real life” one way or the other.

In any case, it does not follow, as the original “if you knew you wouldn’t get caught” comment seeks to suggest, that people who answer “yes” to such a poll are all latent rapists.

Yeeeeah, not so much. I know nothing about this alleged survey, but if the question is whether you would rape a woman if you would not get caught, I’m not inclined to give anyone who answers yes the benefit of the doubt. I think someone who answers “yes” to this question is a latent rapist. Do I think they’re one short step away from breaking into women’s homes and raping them at knifepoint? No. Do I think they’re willing to create or take advantage of situations in which a woman is too impaired to withhold or give consent? Yes.

I find this

In addition, you have to consider the explicitly hypothetical nature of the question in evaluating the answer: Ask “would you [commit any heinous act related to a basic universal human appetite] if you knew you wouldn’t get caught,” and you’ve put the respondent into the headspace of fantasy role-play, rather than reality. The “if you knew you wouldn’t get caught” conditional inherent severs the scenario from reality. Plenty of folks might answer “yes” not because they’re inherently monstrous, but just because they’ve got the requisite imagination to play with the idea of being the bad guy. It certainly does not mean that any significant fraction of the people actually would commit the heinous act in any plausible real scenario.

unconvincing. I wouldn’t ever suspect anyone of being a latent rapist (or rape victim) because he or she enjoys SMBD fantasy or role-play. However, your argument isn’t about that, but about a hypothetical response to a hypothetical survey question. If a person answers that yes, he would commit such an act, I see no reason to spin a web of psychological explanation around that plain answer.
#538 tony
March 2, 2009

Speedwell: As a classic European model socialist, with many European model liberals as friends – how can you countenance consideration of the term ‘libertarian’? It seems at odds with the more ‘social’ perspective of classic European liberals.
#539 Bill Dauphin
March 2, 2009

speedwell:

Sorry to double-team your post (@531), but another thought occurred to me (and FSM forfend that I should have an unexpressed thought, eh?):

The market of public opinion is as important as any other market…

I actually agree with this… but where I differ with L-word-arians is that I believe appropriate regulation by a democratically elected government is the appropriate expression of “the market of public opinion” in this instance.
#540 SC, OM
March 2, 2009

Bill,

Let me put it another way: Your daughter is planning to go to a party on campus. The guys who will be in attendance at the party have just been surveyed and 80% answered “yes” to the question: “Would you rape a girl if you wouldn’t get caught?” How comfortable would you feel about this?
#541 carlos
March 2, 2009

“Mormons”??? So righteous, they won’t even steal their porn.
What they (we?) need is a Mormon porn site. Kewl..I dig blonds.
#542 Sven DiMilo
March 2, 2009

SC @#540: Gah!!! Can you home-school for college and grad school?
#543 AnthonyK
March 2, 2009

On the question of the imagined fantasy becoming the real fantasy – isn’t that precisely the problem with pornography itself?
Most of us can draw the limit between sexual fantasy and real actions (pump actions?) and, I think, most people just don’t have “illegal sex” fantasies. The problem, apart from the age old one of promiscuity, is the actions of the few who do.
Although I would argue for very excplicit “normal” -ie legal – pornography like everyone else here I would ban child-porn, rape-porn, and deoiction of other people’s exploitative sexual fantasies. But is this really a terribly difficult problem?
I mean I’m well aware of what is the wrong sort of pornography and avoid even searching for it. Is it really that difficult?
#544 speedwell
March 2, 2009

Hi, Tony. I agree the word is bad. I don’t know a better word to use. It’s the one that seems to be held in common by people whose position combines limited, efficient government, laissez-faire economic policy, and generally permissive social policies. The recent coinage of “left-libertarian” is worse rather than better.

I don’t want to derail the thread, so I’ll contribute something to the topic; L-ists who think that porn should be banned can’t be completely in favor of any of the three things I listed above. This incidentally causes a lot of problems when an L-ist is religious, because religious laws and dogmas are almost by definition anti-liberty.
#545 SC, OM
March 2, 2009

SC @#540: Gah!!! Can you home-school for college and grad school?

Sorry! It was just a hypothetical to make a point! I made the percentage up!

My apologies to all fathers disturbed by #540.
#546 Sven DiMilo
March 2, 2009

Any percentage is too high on that one. When my daughter was born I immediately worried about her dating cowboys. Then we moved and now it’s lacrosse players.
#547 speedwell
March 2, 2009

I actually agree with this… but where I differ with L-word-arians is that I believe appropriate regulation by a democratically elected government is the appropriate expression of “the market of public opinion” in this instance.

I understand. That’s certainly a legitimate point of disagreement. I think that you situate the proper “locus of control” (to borrow a phrase from psychology) in the group, whereas I locate it in the individual. I don’t think that rights really mean anything at any level but that of the individual. I don’t think that you can meaningfully or effectively assign words like “rights” and “opinions” and “decisions” to a group of people, as if they were cells in an organism and had lost the power of acting on their own. Reasonable people may certainly disagree, but I find understanding the opposing position exceedingly difficult; maybe I’m not characterizing it properly.
#548 Bill Dauphin
March 2, 2009

SC (2537):

I was actually expecting to hear from you on this thread, but I thought it would be on the role-of-corporations point, rather than on the sex bit!

…it does not follow, as the original “if you knew you wouldn’t get caught” comment seeks to suggest, that people who answer “yes” to such a poll are all latent rapists.

Yeeeeah, not so much. I know nothing about this alleged survey, but if the question is whether you would rape a woman if you would not get caught, I’m not inclined to give anyone who answers yes the benefit of the doubt.

I should back up here and make it clear that my intent was never so much to defend the yes-answerers as to attack the worth of the poll itself. My point was not so much that people answering “yes” to that poll (BTW, I’m taking the existence of the poll on faith, based on the comments here; I don’t know anything about it independently) were defensible individuals, but that the explicitly hypothetical predicate of the question calls into doubt whether people answered it seriously at all, and that no conclusion whatsoever can be drawn about likely behavior based on such a poll.

The original commenter suggested that the number of respondents answering “yes” to the poll was >50%. Unless the poll was administered to a population of known felons, I don’t believe more than half of all men are “latent rapists” in any meaningful (i.e., post-Dworkinian) sense of that term; ergo, the poll sucks (IMHO, of course).

I probably did a disservice to both latent rapists and rape fantasy enthusiasts by mentioning both in the same stream of thought: It’s one of my conversational flaws that I often drift from one idea to the next (vaguely) related one without making it clear that I understand the inherent distinctions involved. My bad.

In any case, nothing I’ve said here was intended to defend anyone who would say — and mean it — that he would rape a woman if he thought he’d get away with it… nor to imply that people who enjoy rape fantasies or any other sort of BDSM (“SMBD”? Did I miss a memo?) power-exchange play are in any way comparable to latent rapists. Thank you for pointing out my error.

PS: I haven’t been ignoring your e-mail… or rather, I haven’t been ignoring your e-mail any more than I’ve been ignoring pretty much everything that happens at my home keyboard (my blog, Facebook, e-mail generally…). I’ll be in touch.
#549 Bill Dauphin
March 2, 2009

SC:

My response and your continuation passed each other in the wires; hopefully I’ve at least partially answered your concerns already.

Nonetheless…

Let me put it another way: Your daughter is planning to go to a party on campus. The guys who will be in attendance at the party have just been surveyed and 80% answered “yes” to the question: “Would you rape a girl if you wouldn’t get caught?” How comfortable would you feel about this?

Ahh, the Kitty Dukakis gambit, eh? ;^)

But seriously… since none of the other information I have supports the conclusion that 80% of any significant subset of male Yale students are latent rapists, I would conclude that there’s something collossally bogus about the survey. Which is really all I was trying to say about this.

That said… as you correctly intuit, I wouldn’t willingly bet my daughter’s safety on my ad hoc evaluation of the poll. Life is complex, isn’t it?

Sven:

When my daughter was born I immediately worried about her dating cowboys. Then we moved and now it’s lacrosse players.

No, the lacrosse players were exonerated; worry about her dating prosecutors!

(Just kidding, of course: The behavior of the exonerated Duke lacrosse players hardly recommends itself to fathers-of-daughters, however legal it may have been.)
#550 Sven DiMilo
March 2, 2009

Well, I wasn’t actually referring specifically to the Duke thing. However, one quote I remember from news coverage of that mess rang true (I know some lacrosse players); something like “a toxic combination of rich white-boy entitlement and contact-sport machismo.”
#551 Rev. BigDumbChimp
March 2, 2009

Well, I wasn’t actually referring specifically to the Duke thing. However, one quote I remember from news coverage of that mess rang true (I know some lacrosse players); something like “a toxic combination of rich white-boy entitlement and contact-sport machismo.”

Don’t forget “Unethical Unbridled District Attorney ambition”.
#552 Bill Dauphin
March 2, 2009

Rev:

Don’t forget “Unethical Unbridled District Attorney ambition”.

Yeah… after I typed “worry about her dating prosecutors,” it occurred to me that I’d just circled Sven back to worrying about cowboys.
#553 Bill Dauphin
March 2, 2009

Sorry about the double post: It was literally the result of an unintentional physical twitch of my mouse-finger. Who knew it would work that way?
#554 Sven DiMilo
March 2, 2009

Lawyers in general are right out!
#555 SC, OM
March 2, 2009

I was actually expecting to hear from you on this thread, but I thought it would be on the role-of-corporations point, rather than on the sex bit!

I’m taking a (possibly permanent, if SIWOTI doesn’t get the better of me) break from responding to propertarians and fellow-travelers. The problem is similar to the one I complained about yesterday on the “Radio Reminder” thread with regard to creationist arguments, but in the political realm. There are huge problems in the world and people doing a lot to address them, and we should be talking about that, and yet we’re in this position of having to respond to people repeatedly making absurd, childish arguments based on fantasy (same thing with AGW). I don’t know if Walton’s capable of developing politically, but I don’t have the patience right now to keep banging my head up against that wall; Africangenesis is dishonest and just too incoherent a thinker to deal with. None I’ve seen on this thread are any better. I mean, when you have to keep going back to defending democracy and explaining how corporations operate, you’re not going to get very far. Constantly battling these ridiculous ideas is like constantly having to counter the bacterial-flagellum argument.

I’m burned out on it right now, but I’m glad that others, even if I don’t agree with everything they say, are here to do it. Honestly, though, I wish they’d just go away. They lower the level of and interfere with every promising political discussion.

My point was…that the explicitly hypothetical predicate of the question calls into doubt whether people answered it seriously at all, and that no conclusion whatsoever can be drawn about likely behavior based on such a poll.

Yes, this is a flaw in surveys as a research method (I’ll probably be writing a midterm question about precisely this in the next few hours!). Not that “no conclusion whatsoever can be drawn about likely behavior” based on them, but that they’re not the same as observing actual behavior (although these can be combined in useful ways). But I’m not buying your argument that because the (alleged) question is phrased as a hypothetical, no conclusion whatsoever can be drawn about likely behavior based on it. (You didn’t answer my question about my own hypothetical.) Even though it was very likely plucked from thin air, I don’t find the 50% figure so absurdly high as to invalidate any such survey. It would be cause for more/better research, definitely. But women have too much at stake here to second-guess any such expressions.

(“SMBD”? Did I miss a memo?)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=smbd

Ha! Really, it was just a momentary flippage thing.

Identify ZFX and I’ll be impressed.

I probably did a disservice to both latent rapists

Um…

In any case, nothing I’ve said here was intended to defend anyone who would say ? and mean it ? that he would rape a woman if he thought he’d get away with it…

I never thought you were, of course. My argument was with your interpretation of this (possibly imaginary) survey result.

PS: I haven’t been ignoring your e-mail… or rather, I haven’t been ignoring your e-mail any more than I’ve been ignoring pretty much everything that happens at my home keyboard (my blog, Facebook, e-mail generally…). I’ll be in touch.

No problem. I’ve been pretty (well, very) anti-esocial myself of late. I will be in your area in a few weeks, though – I’ll let you know when my plans are more firmed up, if I don’t hear from you first.
#556 SC, OM
March 2, 2009

(Just kidding, of course: The behavior of the exonerated Duke lacrosse players hardly recommends itself to fathers-of-daughters, however legal it may have been.)

Not to mention that as a proud CT resident (I don’t care where your daughter goes) any Duke athlete should be out automatically.

the explicitly hypothetical predicate of the question calls into doubt whether people answered it seriously at all

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree here. I don’t think the part about not getting caught really puts it in any fantasy realm. A large number of rapes are of the sort that I described in my latent-rapist discussion, an extremely small number of these men are “caught,” and people are aware of this.
#557 SC, OM
March 2, 2009

Not to mention that as a proud CT resident (I don’t care where your daughter goes) any Duke athlete should be out automatically.

Dreadful sentence structure, but I’m sure you get my drift.
#558 Bill Dauphin
March 2, 2009

SC:

But I’m not buying your argument that because the (alleged) question is phrased as a hypothetical, no conclusion whatsoever can be drawn about likely behavior based on it.

I’ve been thinking a bit more about that (is it a Feature or a Bug that I keep thinking about a question even after I’ve given an answer?): I may have been under-rating the importance of the hypotheticality-to-heinousness ratio:

Imagine we ask the same sort of question about a less emotionally charged offense: “Would you shoplift a candy bar if you knew you wouldn’t get caught?” In that case, I would expect a small number of people to take the question seriously and give the principled answer — “Of course not! It would be wrong, whether I got caught or not!” — and another small number to take the question seriously and give the red-in-tooth-and-claw answer — “Sure; where’s the downside for me?” My expectation (and this is admittedly purely intuitive on my part) is also that there’d be a much larger middle, made up of people who would not take the question very seriously at all (because its premise is so transparently nonreal), and would just give whatever answer amused them in the moment, whether flippant or deliberately contrarian or just casually tossed off.

Now that you’ve pressed me on the issue, though, I’m thinking that the sheer emotional weight of rape probably squeezes down the “casual middle” I’ve described above to a much smaller slice, at least partially invalidating some of my previous blathering.

That said, though, I still don’t believe that every other male you see on the street would rape you, if only the coppers weren’t watching. Perhaps my faith in humanity is naive, but I just don’t believe we live that close to the precipice.

You didn’t answer my question about my own hypothetical.

Yes I did… or at least, I posted something that was intended as an answer to your hypothetical. Is this another passed-in-the-wires thing, or did you mean to be rejecting my answer as insufficient?

I probably did a disservice to both latent rapists

Um…

I meant “disservice” in a values-neutral sense: I simultaneously incorrectly legitimized the bad guys and delegitimized innocent fantasists by linking the two; in neither case did I “serve” them appropriately with my comment.

Identify ZFX and I’ll be impressed.

I guess I’ll have to live with the shame of failing to impress you! ;^) But do tell…
#559 Sven DiMilo
March 2, 2009

Identify ZFX and I’ll be impressed

don’t want to know don’t want to know don’t want to know don’t want to know don’t want to know don’t want to know …
#560 SC, OM
March 2, 2009

That said, though, I still don’t believe that every other male you see on the street would rape you, if only the coppers weren’t watching.

But again, I’m speaking mainly about a certain kind of situation, one that doesn’t involve violent attacks on strangers on the street.

Perhaps my faith in humanity is naive, but I just don’t believe we live that close to the precipice.

I’d like to think that. I honestly have no idea, even about the US specifically – it’s not something I study. I don’t think I’m up to investigating it at the moment. (I may also be in a strange frame of mind since I watched Gomorra yesterday and just watched Crazy Love. If you want to preserve that naive faith, though, I’d avoid the episodes of that “What Would You Do?” show when a guy goes to a bar and pretends like he just drugged a girl’s drink and is going to take her outside and have sex with her. :S)

Yes I did… or at least, I posted something that was intended as an answer to your hypothetical. Is this another passed-in-the-wires thing, or did you mean to be rejecting my answer as insufficient?

Nah – our comments crossed.

I meant “disservice” in a values-neutral sense:…

I know – I was teasing.

I guess I’ll have to live with the shame of failing to impress you! ;^) But do tell…

Amusing BDSM-related initials of a production outfit that an old friend and I have had a running joke about for years. Google “zfx shockwave” – if you think you can handle it.
#561 anonymous
March 2, 2009

The study is ridiculous. Generally, Democrat states have the highest internet porn subscription rate per capita. Obviously this would not give the desired headline.

So instead of reporting that statistic, the authors report an entirely theorised notion that “If Republican states had the higher levels of broadband that Democrat states have, then they’d proportionally have marginally higher numbers of porn subscriptions per capita”.

By the internet “chinese whispers” this gets turned into “Republicans consume more porn” etc.

Here is a more likely alternative theory:
The users desiring internet porn subscriptions in states with low broadband uptake have probably ALREADY bought broadband. So, in states with low broadband usage, the proportion of porn subscriptions to broadband connections is HIGHER than it would be if more people in the state were to have broadband. So instead of INCREASING the proportion of users with porn subscription, the proportion should be DECREASED with increasing broadband rollout, and the already “underconsuming” Republican states would be even lower down the consumption list.

It kind of reminds me of the Amman and Wahl verification of 99% certainty with an RE benchmark of zero for the Mann hockey stick. Complete shameless manipulation of statistics.
#562 Rev. BigDumbChimp
March 2, 2009

The study is ridiculous. Generally, Democrat states have the highest internet porn subscription rate per capita. Obviously this would not give the desired headline.

You know what is cool about citing studies?

Actually citing them.
#563 Bill Dauphin
March 2, 2009

The study is ridiculous. Generally, Democrat states…

Bzzzt! If you can’t (or more typically, deliberately refuse to) get the name of the Democratic Party right, you forfeit any interest I might have had in the rest of whatever you have to say. If you want to persuade your adversaries, get their name right; if you just want to insult people, bite me.
#564 Barb
March 2, 2009

Bill Dauphin, you are straining at gnats here over the use of Democrat vs. Democratic.
#565 Nerd of Redhead, OM
March 2, 2009

Barb, you have no point. But then, that is expected from ignorant godbots.
#566 Barb
March 2, 2009

416 Walton

“The difficulty I have with your position is primarily epistemic… you’re asserting that the morals of the modern world are largely wrong, and that “true” morality comes from God…. How can we actually know that the Bible is the “word of God”? Where is the empirical evidence of this?

I imagine your response will be that you don’t need empirical evidence, because you accept it on faith. Fine. But then we face a fundamental epistemic difficulty. If we don’t require evidence in order to accept a claim as true, how can we know which claims are true and which false? How do you know that it is (Trinitarian) Christians who are right, and that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons and Scientologists are all wrong? If you accept that the Bible is the Word of God simply because it says so, then on what basis do you reject the Qu’ran, the Book of Mormon or the Vedas, all of which also claim to be holy scripture? Where do you draw your distinctions between what is true and what is false?”
________________________________
Every witness at the trial MAY be telling the truth if all of them tell the same story. Or they could ALL be lying or mistaken. They may all tell DIFFERENT stories –and still ALL be lying or mistaken. There isn’t any way to tell for certain which witnesses are telling the truth about a past event and which are lying.

So we look at motive. Why would some be motivated to lie? bribery? plea-bargains? to deflect their own guilt? We look at corroborrating evidence.

In the final analysis, we decide that certain witnesses and their testimonies are credible –and certain ones are less so.

The New Testament has several writers involved who had nothing to gain by fictionalizing the life of Christ, Paul, and the acts of the early church.

the other “holy books” you mentioned were written by one author each, and they borrow from other sources and they don’t have as good results.

OUt of time –back later…..
#567 Ichthyic
March 3, 2009

So we look at motive.

*bzzz*

wrong.

the lesson to be learned from the very example you excessively used caps with, is that witness testimony is inherently unreliable (there is not even any reason to involve motive), so we move on to EVIDENCE.

It’s this simple little thing all you godbothering tubthumpers keep living in denial about.

you don’t even have fucking circumstantial evidence to support your case, let alone any witnesses or actual physical evidence.

if you really want to analogize your faith into a court case, know that it would be immediately tossed as insubstantial.

Hell, in CA, you might even get a nuisance charge tacked on.
#568 Stanton
March 3, 2009

And then there is the terrible little problem of how, as Ichthyic eloquently put them, “godbothering tubthumpers” don’t care to explain how a moronic, unyielding adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible will help explain anything, whether about fossil organisms or about cooking mushrooms and cheesecake.
#569 Ichthyic
March 3, 2009

By the internet “chinese whispers” this gets turned into “Republicans consume more porn” etc.

you conveniently left out the word: proportionally, you dishonest git. Which, of course, was the exact result of the study, and not “chinese whispers”.

BTW, anonymous isn’t likely anonymous at all, but an all too familiar global warming denier, too cowardly to show his face for yet another drubbing.

here’s some bait for ya, coward:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/fakeddata.html

McIntyre is a loser and a failure. Hasn’t gotten a single paper on the subject published since the first one, and for good reason:

he was wrong.

bye now.
#570 Matt
March 3, 2009

The New Testament has several writers involved who had nothing to gain by fictionalizing the life of Christ, Paul, and the acts of the early church.

Ugh, the Lee Strobel argument, yuck. I had to read this drek in confirmation a long time ago, and even then I saw through it. All you have to do is go through history finding ridiculous claims, try to frame the argument that they had nothing to gain, and *poof* it’s true!

Tell you what, why don’t you explain why Marshall Applewhite wasn’t correct? He had nothing to gain, after all.

Then, after you’re done with that, I have a list of some other people who had nothing to gain, and we’ll start with Solomon Molcho. He also thought he was the messiah. And he had nothing to gain. In fact, he lost everything, sort of like Jesus supposedly did.

But while you’re doing this, why exactly do we have to settle for unreliable, ancient proclamations? Why not look for corroborating evidence, instead of hunting for an infallible testimony?
#571 Eric In va
March 3, 2009

AnthonyK, you were the last to address me and you still didn’t get it. Sterno is an excellent lubricant.

The jiggly liquid that methanol is contained in is very jell like and very slippery. A VERY good anal lube in a pinch.

In fact, nobody here picked up on that. All you guys fail. This is my point. Knowledge of science and the method does not equal true knowledge. Yes you all figured out the contents of sterno but had no idea what is was really used for in a pinch. It is used for lube and heating. NOT drinking.

Applying that to the bigger picture, why should I believe anything you say? Yes I am trolling but only half way.

I have fundies I love yet don’t believe them. Do you?
#572 Sven DiMilo
March 3, 2009

Eric, we got it.
#573 AnthonyK
March 3, 2009

Sorry, Eric, had to reread the thread, work out if you were a dickhead, work out if I was a dickhead…and now I’m confused. I didn’t know what Sterno was. Now I know that it’s a methanol-based lighter fuel and, apparently, a lubricant.
So….why should you believe anything I say? I give up, why should you? Of course “knowledge of science and the method does not equal true knowledge” but it’s a start, and not a bad method for seeking it. As I see it, re the religion thing, there are (I was going to write plenty, but I mean a few) some people I know who are religious, and some of them are lovely human beings, a credit to Xianity. No problems. But when they start to tell me that, say, evolution is untrue, because of their religion, then I know that some little part of them is deeply, horribly stupid. And I tend to equate that with the bit of them that has religion.
Naive, I know, but that’s what it seems like. Any decent religious person would take on board what science knows, regard it as further evidence of god’s wonderful work, and get on with their lives.
However, though I am deeply deeply rude here, as rude as possible – why? because I can – I wouldn’t do this to Xtians I met in real life.
The christianists here? Well, they’re morons, who come here to prozelitize. They do the opposite of keeping their beliefs to themselves (as I do, unless asked, and even then I would be civil) but try to make us all into pathetic godbots.
The religion that people like Barb represent is mean, vapid, fascistic, cruel and stupid. The fact that they turn up, telling us what is right and wrong in science, with no knowledge or understanding of what they are talking about, seems to be pure evil. And here, I get to confront it, gloves off, loving it.
I hope that answers your questions. But now, I have to go to bed. Feel free to talk to me another time. And don’t troll here, ever. We’ll rip you apart, as you can see. Goodnight.
#574 Eric In Va
March 3, 2009

File it away in your fundie vault Sven. Then don’t swear at the next believer you meet.
#575 AnthonyK
March 3, 2009

Oh, and re your grandmother and whether you should have mocked her – no, but you could have teased her a little. If she really was as smart as you say, she wouldn’t have minded one bit.
#576 Ichthyic
March 3, 2009

NOT drinking

and yet YOU did not pick up on the fact that it is, in fact, used for drinking (I even provided a link; there are thousands of Sterno drinkers, even in the US; it’s a real problem, actually).

In fact, nobody here picked up on that. All you guys fail. This is my point.

care to provide us with more humorous attempts at self-mockery?

done. with. you.
#577 Sven DiMilo
March 3, 2009

File it away in your fundie vault Sven. Then don’t swear at the next believer you meet.

uh

what?
#578 Ichthyic
March 3, 2009

btw, you can even check wiki on it:

Sterno has long been mixed with water and other liquids to produce a drink called “canned heat”, “squeeze” or “pink lady”. The product is squeezed through a rag (or in other traditions, a loaf of French bread with ends removed) to extract the alcohol. These alcoholic beverages, primarily used in poorer communities, have been linked to numerous deaths from methanol poisoning, including 31 people in Philadelphia in 1963

there’s a link to the relevant case file at the bottom of it.

now, if you want to claim us ignorant of the uses of sterno as an anal lubricant, that’s fair, but you can’t lump one into the other and try to use ignorances of anal lubricants as if there is ignorance of everything.

that’s the massive fail on your part, in case it wasn’t clear.
#579 Eric In Va
March 3, 2009

AnthonyK,

Kudos to you! You REALLY said what you think and I love it. I wish more people would do the same yet they don’t.

We butted heads on a stupid point of anal lube! LOL!

Is this what the argument has come to? I admitted to being half a troll. I knew you guys wouldn’t know the other uses of sterno in advance.

So I ask myself what the hell was my point? To be honest, I had and have no agenda. I admit the vitriol shown to others angered me yet was that all? Hell I don’t even think there is a god!

You and others have forced me to finally think this through. I am against calling out in a forceful (about religion) way those that we love because there is no upside.

Sheesh…I feel like the gay guy that is embarrased to tell his Mom.

Perhaps I am what is wrong with athiesm?
#580 Nerd of Redhead, OM
March 3, 2009

I would never use sterno as an internal lubricant. Alcohol dries out and irritates cells without a protective layer, and hurts like the devil if it gets in a cut or tear.
#581 Eric In Va
March 3, 2009

Thanks all for your responces. Most spent more time on me than I deserve.

I am about to microwave the best meatloaf and mashed potatoes availible on this planet. All of you all’s task is to find better! Get those telescopes on other planets as the better grub needs to be tested…and I volunteer.

Go Nats!

-Eric
#582 Ichthyic
March 4, 2009

Perhaps I am what is wrong with athiesm?

or maybe it’s just what’s wrong with you.
#583 twilight
March 4, 2009

Could just be that Republicans are more likely to pay for it. Democrats, being marginally more intelligent on average, are more likely to figure out how to use Pirate Bay and the newsgroups to get their porn for free.

Seriously! PAYING FOR PORN?
#584 thomas
March 5, 2009

It is sheep in Montana, damn it, SHEEP!!!! Do you know how hard cows kick?
#585 hery
January 25, 2010

Barb, even though I like watching women dressed like stupid cats