Pharyngula

You want to put WHAT in my what??!?

This is the phallus of a beetle.

i-422a4b1d4833642c880fd8ecf3efc20d-spiky-beetle-genitals.jpeg

It actually is that spiky, like a medieval torture instrument, and the females don’t look as if they enjoy getting penetrated with it — it physically tears up their reproductive tract.

I cringe just looking at it.

Comments

  1. #1 Carlie
    March 1, 2009

    That’s sperm competition for you. Bastards!

  2. #2 Mike
    March 1, 2009

    Even scarier pictures on Not Exactly Rocket Science along with details

  3. #3 Alex Deam
    March 1, 2009

    Hahahaha, but it’s so puny and inferior!

  4. #4 Braiden
    March 1, 2009

    Too bad it needed to be killed and stained with heavy metals to get the picture. Beetle porn might be interesting.

  5. #5 Missus Gumby
    March 1, 2009

    (With apologies to M Python.)

    Isn’t it awfully nice to have a penis?
    Isn’t it frightfully good to have a dong?

    It’s swell to have a stiffy.
    It’s divine to own a dick,
    From the tiniest little tadger
    To the world’s biggest prick.

    So, three cheers for your Willy or John Thomas.
    Hooray for your one-eyed trouser snake,
    Your piece of pork, your wife’s best friend,
    Your Percy, or your cock.

    You can wrap it up in ribbons.
    You can slip it in your sock,
    But don’t take it out in public,
    Or they will stick you in the dock,
    And you won’t come back.

  6. #6 Glen Davidson
    March 1, 2009

    Design in action!

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

  7. #7 Hank Fox
    March 1, 2009

    Makes me think of the Hitler-pineapple scene from the movie “Little Nicky.” Only it’s Rush Limbaugh. And this thing.

  8. #8 Devysciple
    March 1, 2009

    That’s actually proof of Sky Daddy’s existence! Can’t you see it?!

    The male gets all the fun, while the female gets punished… Just like you can read it the Holy Book’n’Stuff…

  9. #9 robhoofd
    March 1, 2009

    Surely, this proves there must be a Creator!

  10. #10 Josh
    March 1, 2009

    god is an asshole.

  11. #11 Steve_C
    March 1, 2009

    God is one sick fuck, designing it like that.

  12. #12 Anon
    March 1, 2009

    And Ringo still landed Barbara Bach.

    Wow.

  13. #13 slang
    March 1, 2009

    Certainly gives a different feel to the word beetlejuice.

  14. #14 GeoffR
    March 1, 2009

    What you’re looking at there is the reason there are no gay beetles.

  15. #15 Sclerophanax
    March 1, 2009

    Stuff like this sometimes makes me wonder if God really does exist after all. It’s just exactly something that Yahweh could be expected to come up with. ;)

  16. #16 Sven DiMilo
    March 1, 2009

    You always hurt
    The one you love,
    The one (hey!) you shouldn’t hurt at all
    (sing it with me…)
    [/bill murray]

  17. #17 Patricia, OM
    March 1, 2009

    Hank Fox – Funny, I thought of that same Hitler/pineapple scene too. ;) And Young Frankensteen.

  18. #18 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 1, 2009

    I wonder what Barb will have to say about this.

    “Proof that sex is evil!!”

  19. #19 Kel
    March 1, 2009

    I’m still trying to figure out if it looks more like a cobra or something out of an Alien movie.

  20. #20 Enkidu
    March 1, 2009

    Evolution in action – I’d expect that the female mates only once. She wouldn’t need that reproductive system a second time anyway, and he sees to it his sperm face no competition.

  21. #21 Scott from Oregon
    March 1, 2009

    How about a picture of the torn up female tract? Heh heh heh…

    Beetle porn…

  22. #22 TigerHunter
    March 1, 2009

    @20: Read the link @2 posted. They mate multiple times, and one theory is that the spikes benefit the male beetles by scraping competing beetles’ sperm out of the female’s reproductive tract, giving its own sperm a better chance at being the ones to fertilize the eggs.

  23. #23 www.10ch.org/
    March 1, 2009

    Religious nuts would use this to say, “God surely designed sex as something evil!!!” or… something…

  24. #24 Ichthyic
    March 1, 2009

    from the “not rocket science” article linked to by mike:

    Hotzy and Arnqvist first had to fluff their subjects.

    I’d give my right pinky to see the grant app. for that one.

  25. #25 Patricia, OM
    March 1, 2009

    Mike @2 – Gee, thanks for that link. EEEeeewwwww!

  26. #26 DLC
    March 1, 2009

    Hm. that’d be a good pic to keep for when you need something to stick over the Boss’ photo.

  27. #27 Shane
    March 1, 2009

    Well, Haldane once apparently remarked that the Creator, if such existed, “must have an inordinate fondness for beetles”.

    It would appear that is not the case. At least not for girl beetles…

  28. #28 Ichthyic
    March 1, 2009

    new job title:

    “Professional Beetle Fluffer”

  29. #29 Ichthyic
    March 1, 2009

    How about a picture of the torn up female tract?

    it figures SfO would have that fetish.

    go away, Scott.

    fucking twit.

  30. #30 Odonata
    March 1, 2009

    That photo reminds me of a great beetle article that PZ wrote in SEED about the competition between weapons and testes!

    http://seedmagazine.com/news/2007/05/on_extravagant_proportions.php

  31. #31 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 1, 2009

    The casing of most beetles is made out of chitin (think fingernails or shrimp tails). Probably the beetle vagina is made of it too. It is a hard smooth surface, so to get any hold I can see the need for that mace looking appendage just to stay put long enough to transfer the sperm.

  32. #32 AnthonyK
    March 1, 2009

    Well, evolutionists, I hope you’re happy. This is just what you get if you let naturalism run wild. Well, that and Hitler.

  33. #33 keely
    March 1, 2009

    I recently attended a lecture in Vancouver called “Darwin and Your Sex Life”. A very entertaining lecture indeed. Lecturer was great.

    We also discussed the barbed penises of other primates (discussion then occured as to whether or not they were barbed for ‘her pleasure’), as well as that of male cats. They actually, if I recall correctly, have backwards facing barbs, the pain of which causes the female cat to ‘drop the egg’ and start ovulation. Now that, that sounds like pain, and if you’ve ever heard cats at it, you can hear that pain.

    The research of such adaptations, important, and of course, so very entertaining…

  34. #34 Wowbagger
    March 1, 2009

    Now that, that sounds like pain, and if you’ve ever heard cats at it, you can hear that pain.

    You’ve also experienced it if anyone near you has ever played a Céline Dion album…

  35. #35 Jules
    March 1, 2009

    Aghghgghgh! I clicked the link and was clicking through the photos in the story. In the pictures, one of the beetle peckers has some kind of JAWS WITH TEETH on it. Poor girl beetle.

  36. #36 Geoff
    March 1, 2009

    Best Single Argument against Intelligent Design Creationism Ever!

    Science wins the internet … again!

  37. #37 Bryn
    March 1, 2009

    You think [i]you[/i] cringe looking at it??!???

  38. #38 Bryn
    March 1, 2009

    (After having another cola)

    You think you cringe just looking at it??!???

    (That’ll teach me not to preview.)

  39. #39 Wowbagger
    March 1, 2009

    In the pictures, one of the beetle peckers has some kind of JAWS WITH TEETH on it.

    Perhaps the design team spent a few hours in the entomology department whilst coming up with the concept for the alien in Alien.

  40. #40 Kitty'sBitch
    March 1, 2009

    Yeah, that happened to me once in the nineties.
    They have an ointment that clears it right up.

  41. #41 Tommykey
    March 1, 2009

    The antidote to vagina dentata.

  42. #42 Marc Abian
    March 1, 2009

    Spiked for her pleasure.

  43. #43 Michael Fonda
    March 1, 2009

    Wow, talk about being a prick.

  44. #44 Alex Deam
    March 1, 2009

    Science wins the internet … again!

    We may need a bigger mantelpiece.

  45. #45 Stark
    March 1, 2009

    God is a Dick! Get it?? Get it? :D :(

  46. #46 'Tis Himself
    March 1, 2009

    Now I understand why female mantises kill the males during sex.

  47. #47 David
    March 1, 2009

    sexy!

  48. #48 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 1, 2009

    That is obviously a French beetle

  49. #49 windy
    March 1, 2009

    I wonder what Joan Roughgarden would say. Those beetles must be “co-operating”. Yeah, that’s it.

    Enkidu:

    Evolution in action – I’d expect that the female mates only once. She wouldn’t need that reproductive system a second time anyway, and he sees to it his sperm face no competition.

    Nature is weirder than you’d expect!

    “Females have thick padding on their reproductive tract that’s reinforced with strong, elastic connective tissue. After each mating event?about five to ten in their 25- to 30-day lifetime?the wounds heal and leave scar tissue.”

  50. #50 Horse-Pheathers
    March 1, 2009

    I’m just a little beetle,
    who sings a little song
    Because you’ve seen a little picture
    of my little dong….

    So imposing and so thorny,
    so unmatched in its place
    Looking quite medieval
    like an ancient mace.

    The ladies really dig me
    I know just what they like
    Just say my name to get some game!
    Girlbugs? Ask for ‘Spike’.

  51. #51 Pierce R. Butler
    March 1, 2009

    Make the spurs from soft rubber, scale it up a few orders of magnitude, market it as the EuroTickler?, get it mentioned on the Daily Show … and in the Bush-legacy economy, you’d still go broke.

  52. #52 Ichthyic
    March 1, 2009

    I wonder what Joan Roughgarden would say.

    hah! winner!

    I almost feel sorry for her, sometimes.

    amazing how the thing she thought would ruin her credibility in the scientific community completely didn’t (gender change), and instead she ruined it all on her own with pure nonsense.

  53. #53 Terskac
    March 1, 2009

    But there is homosexual behavior in beetles. A link to the side of that article says something about it.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081104-homosexual-beetles.html

  54. #54 Nix
    March 1, 2009

    Yeah, humans really are pathetic, aren’t we? I mean, we don’t even have a bone in our boner, unlike every other mammal out there. Pure hydraulics, like we were imitating squid or something.

    One wonders whether *that* change confers an adaptive advantage. I guess we’ll never know; but the loss of the ability to lock yourself in place during reproduction doesn’t sound very adaptive to me. I suppose the strongly K-selected pair-bonded nature of human reproduction tends to discourage fuck-and-run strategies anyway: so perhaps you don’t need to lock yourself in place if it’s likely you’ll have another chance later on.

  55. #55 windy
    March 1, 2009

    Terskac: that’s true, but we were talking about Roughgarden wanting to replace sexual selection theory with “co-operative games”.

  56. #56 mikeg
    March 1, 2009

    needle dick bug fucker… for real

  57. #57 Roger
    March 1, 2009

    Maybe beetles like it rough?

  58. #58 blueelm
    March 1, 2009

    Woah. I feel lucky to be a female human now.

  59. #59 Insightful Ape
    March 1, 2009

    My first question was why it hasn’t been eliminated by sexual selection, if it hurts. Those beetles with a smoother organ would have an advantage. But Nerd of Redhead may have a point: while I am no expert on beetle sex, if physical damage is part and parcel of efficient transfer of sperm, then those with a smoother organ would be at a disadvantage.
    One thing I know from my human experience is that evolution isn’t about physical comfort.

  60. #60 ChrisKG
    March 1, 2009

    Ribbed, for her pleasure.
    ;-)

  61. #61 Benjamin Geiger
    March 1, 2009


    Morningstar goes WHERE?

  62. #62 Daumier
    March 1, 2009

    There really is no god.

  63. #63 Benjamin Geiger
    March 1, 2009

    Dammit.

    <lolcaption type=”obligatory”>
    Morningstar goes WHERE?
    </lolcaption>

  64. #64 eyeofhorus
    March 1, 2009

    One of the Professors at my University does research on this kind of thing (his staff website: http://www.shef.ac.uk/aps/staff/acadstaff/siva-jothy.html). He looks at a species of bed bug which has a similar looking phallus. From what I understand from his lectures, it appears the male and female of the species are in evolutionary conflict. The male forces the female to copulate by piercing her abdomen with his phallus, instead of inseminating her through her reproductive tract. This causes higher mortality in the female than would be needed, which doesn’t seem to be compensated by the amount of offspring she produces (although I guess the male increases his offspring or avoids her copulating with anyone else). In response, the female has evolved organ known as a ‘spermalege’ which is located in the area where the male pierces her. This reduces the amount of parasites that is transferred to her during sex, so increasing her survival. I think in this species the females actually try and avoid sex, but after they’ve taken a blood meal they increase in size and the males are able to attack them.

  65. #65 eyeofhorus
    March 1, 2009

    Re 59: I think it’s a case of the spiky phallus being an advantage to the male, because he could force the female to have sex. It’s disadvantageous to the female, so my lecturer wondered if she had evolved something in response: and in the bed bug found the spermalege. Males and females aren’t always looking for the same thing, and this causes conflict.

    Other examples could be in birds, where females want a male to help her look after the nest. They often have ‘affairs’ with other more, attractive males which don’t help with the nest building. This is obviously disadvantageous to the male who is looking after the birds which he isn’t related to, so it would be to his advantage to evolve a mechanism to distinguish between his offspring. In theory, if its more costly to distinguish between his babies than it is not to then the mechanism won’t evolve. This could happen if he makes an error and stops feeding a bird which he is actually related to: it would have been better if he hadn’t tried to tell them apart.

  66. #66 DEconStructualiST
    March 1, 2009

    A prick discussing pricks. You should be good at this science Myers, I’m sure you’re an expert on pricks.

  67. #67 Boletus
    March 1, 2009

    Yummmm. What’s for dinner?

  68. #68 Mr. Beetle
    March 1, 2009

    You’re such a dirty girl. I think you need a good scrubbing.

  69. #69 Kitty'sBitch
    March 1, 2009

    DEconStructualiST
    Really?
    That’s the best you can do?
    Hahaha wow, that is neither clever nor interesting.
    Pass.

  70. #70 Enkidu
    March 1, 2009

    DEconStructualiST:

    All of us regular readers are . . . we see so many. Well, so many plus one now.

  71. #71 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 1, 2009

    A prick discussing pricks. You should be good at this science Myers, I’m sure you’re an expert on pricks.

    And the award for weakest insult of the weekend goes to

    DEconStructualiST

    CONGRATULATIONS!!!

    you fail.

  72. #72 Ichthyic
    March 1, 2009

    And the award for weakest insult

    I’m sure it’s some young squeaker who was tossed in the dungeon, thinking it some form of “revenge”.

    still, I’m sure it wrung it’s hands mightily before posting that “winner”

    *snort*

  73. #73 Dutchdoc
    March 1, 2009

    PZ:”I cringe just looking at it.

    I bet the beetle cringed some more!



    To obtain close-up views of seed beetles’ spiny male genitalia, scientists first put the insect under carbon dioxide anesthesia.

    The scientists then pumped up the sexual organ with a tiny artificial inflator powered by a water-jet vacuum pump.

    Once fully inflated, the genitalia were stabilized in 212-degree-Fahrenheit (100-degree-Celsius) water and photographed

  74. #74 Patricia, OM
    March 1, 2009

    A prick discussing pricks…*snort* That doesn’t even deserve a cootie.

    Better trolls please!

  75. #75 Oliver
    March 1, 2009

    @DEconStructualiST

    That was one of the limpest, most impotent attempts I’ve seen since Jonny-Boy was here last.

    Leave the barbed assaults to the beetles: they’re better equipped than you.

  76. #76 Sven DiMilo
    March 1, 2009

    So, see, that picture is, like, a beetle’s penis, right? And so the guy sez, he sez, “Hey Myers,” he sez, “Nice picture of a beetle’s penis,” he sez, “Hey! You’re a penis!”

    So that was, like, the joke of it right there.

  77. #77 Kitty'sBitch
    March 1, 2009

    I’d like to nominate DEconStructuraliST as weakest troll intellect of the month.
    Considering the number of creationists that show up around here, it’s a hell of field, but I see signs of a winner in the glorious post at #66.
    A truly spectacular fail.

  78. #78 Insightful Ape
    March 1, 2009

    DE, I didn’t know the trolls were getting so desperate.

  79. #79 Klokwurk
    March 1, 2009

    The scientists then pumped up the sexual organ with a tiny artificial inflator powered by a water-jet vacuum pump.
    Once fully inflated, the genitalia were stabilized in 212-degree-Fahrenheit (100-degree-Celsius) water and photographed

    Haven’t we all been there… right fellas? … fellas?

  80. #80 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 1, 2009

    Haven’t we all been there… right fellas? … fellas?

    Usually depends on the ratio of Bourbon to Blood in my body.

    Oh wait. Am I sharing too much?

  81. #81 'Tis Himself
    March 1, 2009

    At least the troll didn’t call PZ a poopyhead.

  82. #82 Kitty'sBitch
    March 1, 2009

    Klokwurk
    Uh…I don’t…I mean…sorry.

  83. #83 'Tis Himself
    March 1, 2009

    Haven’t we all been there… right fellas? … fellas?

    In a word, no.

  84. #84 Julian
    March 1, 2009

    Nix: I think it likely has more to do with our form of locomotion and the body type that encourages. Imagine trying to run away from a lion, or after a gazelle, with a rigid bone anchored between your massive thighs, stabbing up into your stomach. Doesn’t sound fun to me.

    DEconStructuraliST: First off, were you trying to spell out Deist in capital letters there, because you didn’t. Secondly, when you insult someone, it really ruins the effect when you repeat the insulting part three times in your statement. It’d be like me saying you must be an expert on stupid because of how much stupid seems to be in your stupid brain. You see how that doesn’t sound very impressive? Neither does your insult. In fact, it is almost cute in its incompetence. Go to Fark, work on your troll-fu, then try again when you’re interesting.

  85. #85 Kel
    March 1, 2009

    Haven’t we all been there… right fellas? … fellas?

    I have not. Is it fun?

  86. #86 Klokwurk
    March 1, 2009

    I have not. Is it fun?

    Not really. At first it’s sort of interesting but after a while you just want to get it over with so you can get your money and get out. ;)

  87. #87 Patricia, OM
    March 1, 2009

    Poopyhead. Indeed. Poopyhead and meanypants are shocking examples of filth, and I’ll thank you good sir to clean up that fucking potty mouth. Think of the children!

  88. #88 JoeSixpack
    March 1, 2009

    I can’t think of anything witty.

  89. #89 Kel
    March 1, 2009

    Not really. At first it’s sort of interesting but after a while you just want to get it over with so you can get your money and get out. ;)

    Sounds like the life of a prostitute ;)

  90. #90 JeffreyD
    March 1, 2009

    Man, does that bring back my days in the porn industry.

    What? Whadda ya mean the mic is open????

  91. #91 Oliver
    March 1, 2009

    @Julian

    I was going to encourage DEconStructuraliST to raise his game, but I don’t think he can get it up.

  92. #92 Boletus
    March 1, 2009

    Any more info on biological competition between genders (@64-65)? That was really interesting stuff.

    I’m so glad human sexes are not in antagonistic competition! Whew! ;-)

  93. #93 Ichthyic
    March 1, 2009

    A bit OT, but speaking of giant thorny dicks, seems that Rush Limbaugh is becoming more and more the ideological leader of the rethuglican party…

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/02/02/limbaugh_palin/index.html

    Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh remain the leaders of your party, and most Republicans are happy that way. A Rasmussen poll out today found that fully 55 percent of Republicans polled think their party should be “more like” Palin.

    Can you imagine a Limbaugh/Palin ticket for 2012?

    Now I can, and it makes me damn glad I’m not fucking there any more.

    :p

  94. #94 Patricia, OM
    March 1, 2009

    JefferyD – A big bosomy hug!

  95. #95 JeffreyD
    March 1, 2009

    Hugs back, dear, dear Patricia darling. How are chickies?

    Ciao, dear lady.

  96. #96 Kseniya
    March 1, 2009

    Ichthyic, did you actually relocate? As in, expatriate?

    Oh, look! There’s JeffreyD!

  97. #97 Stephanurus
    March 1, 2009

    There is a poster somebody made some years ago called “Penises of the Animal Kingdom”. I’ve never seen it on the web. Anybody heard of it or know where it is?
    Stephanurus

  98. #98 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 1, 2009

    There is a poster somebody made some years ago called “Penises of the Animal Kingdom”. I’ve never seen it on the web. Anybody heard of it or know where it is?

    I wonder if it is anything like Giger’s “Penis Landscape

  99. #99 JeffreyD
    March 1, 2009

    Lo! In the distance I see them, the charming and darling Kseniya and the heart healthy Omega filled Ichthyic. I got bosomy hugs from Patricia and sightings of those long absent, including myself. Life is good and checking prior to falling into the arms of Morpheus is a good idea.

    Ciao and night y’all

  100. #100 Leigh Williams
    March 1, 2009

    JeffreyD! How good to hear from you. Is all well, and are you safe and comfy? We worry about you when you’re not around, you know.

    We are all fine here in Austin, as long as nobody drops a lit cigarette or strikes a spark. We’re in the eighteenth month of a drought.

  101. #101 Dust
    March 1, 2009

    I’ve seen the Penises of the Animal kindom poster-disappointing, really. Just a collection of small line drawings.

    Now, back in my college days, the plastinated animal penises (livestock-goats, sheep, cattle and horses)in the animal anatomy lab, well, they were something…………

  102. #102 CortxVortx
    March 1, 2009

    Dulnessa was staring at my yard with horror. “My gods!” she cried. “Put that ghastly thing away! It looks like one of those spiky maces that knights bash in each other’s armor with. ‘Twould slay me dead!”

    The Fallible Fiend (L. Sprague de Camp)

  103. #103 Ichthyic
    March 1, 2009

    Ichthyic, did you actually relocate? As in, expatriate?

    Ayup.

    frantically* working on becoming a real Kiwi, now that I’ve frantically explored the place from top to bottom over the last 2 months.

    I’ll be putting up a blog soon to detail the adventures (and some of them will have you laughing at some of the dumbass stuff I managed to “accomplish” so far).

    *hint: “frantic” is why the blog isn’t already up. Fortunately (?) I’ve finished my wanderings for the moment.

  104. #105 AdmiralNaismith
    March 1, 2009

    Is that beetle evidence in favor of the “Incompetent Design” theory?

  105. #106 Sven DiMilo
    March 1, 2009

    Fans of spikey penises may wish to have a look at that of the crested porcupine. Scroll down for it, then be sure to click on the nearby links labeled turtles, pigs, and waterfowl (not so spikey but impressive nonetheless).

  106. #107 Blondin
    March 1, 2009

    “The scientists then pumped up the sexual organ with a tiny artificial inflator powered by a water-jet vacuum pump. Once fully inflated, the genitalia were stabilized in 212-degree-Fahrenheit (100-degree-Celsius) water and photographed”

    No no, nurse! I told you to “prick his boil”!

  107. #108 Tanystropheus
    March 2, 2009

    Another example of ‘intelligent’ design, no doubt.

  108. #109 C. M. Baxter
    March 2, 2009

    If beetle-kind achieve worldwide hegemony after the human demise, I foresee global domestic discontent. Divorce lawyers will reign supreme.

  109. #110 Rodger T NZ
    March 2, 2009

    Me so thorny

  110. #111 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    Me so thorny

    nice

  111. #112 YIKES
    March 2, 2009

    Now at least tell me that female beetles like to attack and eat the males afterward!!

  112. #113 ChimaeraLaurie
    March 2, 2009

    Hells bloody bells! I can tell you that my husband wouldn’t be allowed anywhere near me if he looked like that.

  113. #114 Anonymous
    March 2, 2009

    Yup, the pineapple scene sprung to mind. But you know what the sick thing is? Some humans do show exactly this same behaviour. They can’t get it de natura like the beetles so they sow up their girls and use knives but it’s the same thing. Except of course that the beetles don’t have much choice in the matter, while the humans in question willfully cause the act to hurt even though nature has blessed us with organs that make it enjoyable by default. So I can’t say that I found the beetle penis very shocking, I’ve seen worse.

  114. #115 Strangebrew
    March 2, 2009

    *14

    ‘What you’re looking at there is the reason there are no gay beetles.’

    What we are looking at is a reason to wonder that there are any beetles at all!

  115. #116 Stephen Wells
    March 2, 2009

    I just followed the porcupine link and… for the love of mercy it has retractable fangs. I’ll never sleep well again.

  116. #117 DuckPhup
    March 2, 2009

    No no, nurse! I told you to “prick his boil”!

    Now that is brilliant.

  117. #118 Masks of Eris
    March 2, 2009

    First thought: (incoherent panicky gibbering)

    Second thought: I wonder if this counts as Rule 34?

    Third thought: I can’t believe I just thought that.

  118. #119 Logicel
    March 2, 2009

    #18 Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 1, 2009 4:39 PM

    I wonder what Barb will have to say about this.

    ________

    That the female beetle would be happy to be called Mrs. Spiky Penis Beetle as she belongs to the male?

  119. #120 eddie
    March 2, 2009

    And here’s a new trick, Mr. Knox….
    Socks on chicks and chicks on fox.
    Fox on clocks on bricks and blocks.
    Bricks and blocks on Knox on box.

    Dr Seuss

    I seem to recall there was another verse about Cocks on Ticks but it got censored.

  120. #121 JeffreyD
    March 2, 2009

    Leigh Williams, hiya hon. Sorry I missed this last night, went to bed early. I am well, safe, and (baring a cold) comfy. Glad you are good, hope you get rain soon, dear lady.

    Ciao

  121. #122 Irony
    March 2, 2009

    Did anyone else notice that the last name of the author of that article is Amore?

  122. #123 SC, OM
    March 2, 2009

    JeffreyD! Glad to hear you’re doing well! How was the wedding?

  123. #124 Mike
    March 2, 2009

    Talk about HORNY!!!! Aahahahahaha… but seriously.

  124. #125 JeffreyD
    March 2, 2009

    SC, OM of the beautiful mind! Have a rose in anticipation of Spring @}–’—,—.

    Wedding was good, married life good, again, brain and spirit continue to heal. Unfortunately, I have to travel some coming up, most of March in the UK, but might get to see Nick the G if I can get up his way. In any case, will take new bride with me the next time I make it to Europe, later this year. She has never been to London or Paris, so I get to share it with her.

    How goes life in your corner of reality? If you get tired of the weather, always welcome to visit us here in Charleston, SC. We have had our snow already this year, about 115 flakes on 20 Jan. :^)

    Ciao, darling lady friend

  125. #126 Knockgoats
    March 2, 2009

    But there is homosexual behavior in beetles. – Terskac

    Shh – don’t tell Barb! She’ll be going around stamping on them, or even worse (for the beetles) lecturing them on how icky gay sex is, and the true source of morality – Abraham’s God.

  126. #127 Mrs Tilton
    March 2, 2009

    Ichthyic @103,

    frantically* working on becoming a real Kiwi

    You can forget about atheism, then. There is no way to fit in if you don’t adopt the national religion.

  127. #128 SC, OM
    March 2, 2009

    Aw! :)

    How sweet that you’re saddened at the prospect of traveling without her. Your trip later this year sounds wonderful.

    Here? Snowstorm. It was just about gone, and overnight we have inches and inches. On days like this I question why I’m living here. Can’t wait for spring. I’ll be doing some visiting this month (just around the NE), so I’m looking forward to that.

    Oh, for anyone interested: Went out with MAJeff on Thursday. We were celebrating – I got a bit of good news, and he received some very good news about his dissertation, which he’ll be defending shortly! Hooray! He sends his best, and said to tell everyone he would return to Pharyngula after the defense (this promise was made after several beers, but Im going to try to hold him to it).

  128. #129 astrounit
    March 2, 2009

    An “inordinate fondness for beetles” aye?

    Hmmm. Now that’s an interesting picture. It might even suggest a connection behind “who’s buying all that porn”….

  129. #130 J
    March 2, 2009

    Everything looks bigger under an electron microscope…

  130. #131 astrounit
    March 2, 2009

    Ichthyic (#93): Had you any doubts before that giant thorny blow-hard has been the Republican’s Chief Pied Piper since before the Clinton administration?

    Not having you here to help the rest of us deal with the problems makes me kind of sad, though.

  131. #132 Diane
    March 2, 2009

    So awfully glad nature did not endow human males with a similar penis. There is no amount of lube that would make that thing comfortable. And think of how quickly men would go through underwear and pants. My husband rips his underwear just fine all on his own.

  132. #133 RichVR
    March 2, 2009

    @CortxVortx #102:

    THAT was the name of that book. Thanks. I loved it as a kid, must find it used and purchase.

  133. #134 SC, OM
    March 2, 2009

    So awfully glad nature did not endow human males with a similar penis.

    It’s strange, though, that, at least in our culture, men have this thing about enormous penises. I recall reading years ago that among the !Kung extremely large penises are/were not at all the most desirable. This makes perfect sense. I would guess it’s true here, too, but for some reason there’s this culturally-ingrained notion of “if big is good, huge must be better.”

  134. #135 Carlie
    March 2, 2009

    Thanks for the update, SC – I’ve really been missing MAJeff! Tell him we send best wishes for the defense.

  135. #136 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    Carlie

    Thanks for the update, SC – I’ve really been missing MAJeff! Tell him we send best wishes for the defense.

    Carlie speaks for many of us. Let us know (or have him stop by for a quick whoop) when he passes. We want to raise a few toasts in his honor.

  136. #137 Peter Ashby
    March 2, 2009

    @Wowbagger

    For Alien they went deep sea diving. Meet Phronema
    http://www.aad.gov.au/imglib/small/20070207-amphipod-phronema-russ-hopcroft-sm-160241.jpg

    You can see it animated in The Deep episode of the BBC’s Blue Planet series.

  137. #138 frog
    March 2, 2009

    SOF: How about a picture of the torn up female tract? Heh heh heh…

    And some folks still pretend that political and religious arguments are somehow advanced by rational argument…

    Freud was f*cking right, even if he was wrong in all the details, and a cheater to boot.

  138. #139 astrounit
    March 2, 2009

    #136: Nerd of Redhead vis Carlie: Seconded!

    I’ve been away. What happened?

  139. #140 Chuck
    March 2, 2009

    Beetles are clearly trying to compensate for their tiny pricks with prickles. I mean, look at that scale bar! Ladies, I am better than that guy!

  140. #141 eddie
    March 2, 2009

    Re: “So awfully glad nature did not endow human males with a similar penis”

    Anyone else here read The Algebraist by Iain M Banks? The main bad guy has a genetically modified schlong. And that’s not even the worst depiction of torture in that story.

  141. #142 Ichthyic
    March 2, 2009

    Not having you here to help the rest of us deal with the problems makes me kind of sad, though.

    thanks, but I’ve done my time in the trenches there (long before Pharyngula was a gleam in the eye of a certain cephalopod-enamored mad scientist). Now I want to get back to doing what I love (uh, that would be studying fish, FYI), in a place where I don’t have to worry about the govt doing something irretrievably stupid that has global consequences. Moreover, everything is clean and green here (for the most part).

    so far, so good (though the adventures have had their ups and downs, no doubt!).

    Congrats to JeffreyD and MAJeff.

    currently trying to get over a cold, so I’m going to sign off and catch up on some reading in a few.

    cheers,

    p.s. I subscribe to no religion, even the All Blacks (besides, they aren’t doing too well, last I checked)

  142. #143 mandrake
    March 2, 2009

    Ichthyic @ 93 –

    Now I can, and it makes me damn glad I’m not fucking there any more.

    Yes, there are probably lots of better places to fuck.

  143. #144 simon
    March 2, 2009

    @mandrake
    Yes, there are probably lots of better places to fuck.

    is it allowed for atheists to f**k their mother and sisters ?
    why not ?
    who can justify you are wrong except yourself ?

  144. #145 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    Simon, only godbots like yourself can fuck their mothers and sisters. After all, one can do or have proscribed anything by the bible, since it makes no sense, and bites its own tail.
    As a matter of science and ethics, one does not have sex with close relatives.

  145. #146 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    You’re a pretty sick fuck Simon. You are definitely ban material.

  146. #147 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    Simon – morality = social construct. It’s a product of social creatures, so justification for right and wrong is always dependant of the context of the society they are in.

  147. #148 Sven DiMilo
    March 2, 2009

    ..and to complete the thought, the vast majority of societies throughout human history and prehistory have frowned on the fucking of mothers and sisters. Many have been permissive, however, about spelling the vernacular of “fuck” without asterisks.

  148. #149 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    Simon, is the only thing stopping you fucking your mother and / or sister that God says it’s wrong?

  149. #150 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    Although incest is a reoccurring theme in the OT. Jewish and Greek bachelors cavorting together is the theme of the NT.

  150. #151 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    Simon.

    Were you dropped on your head when you were younger?

    How many times do we have to explain to you that social taboos and rules are a result of thousands of years of human progress and evolution?

  151. #152 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    How many times do we have to explain to you that social taboos and rules are a result of thousands of years of human progress and evolution?

    We as societies tended to invent gods and let them set the rules *wink wink* when we didn’t have the knowledge to explain the way things actually work. Getting rid of those mythical figureheads has proven difficult because of idiots like you Simon, who don’t understand reality. Happy now?

  152. #153 simon
    March 2, 2009

    @ #145
    As a matter of science and ethics, one does not have sex with close relatives.

    What ? as matter of science ?
    as a matter of science animal can f**k their mother, because their instinct can justify themselves.

    which ethics ? ethics of civilized community or jungle people ?

  153. #154 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    What ? as matter of science ?
    as a matter of science animal can f**k their mother, because their instinct can justify themselves.

    You’re an idiot. We happen to be able to make decisions based on more than just animal instincts.

  154. #155 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    as a matter of science animal can f**k their mother, because their instinct can justify themselves

    Instinct doesn’t justify itself you ignoramus, it’s a factor in our behaviour. What’s moral is a product of social interaction, a social construct. Much like the rule of law is. These are constructs that have come into place in order to mandate behaviour between people.

    I ask again, is the only thing stopping you from fucking your mother and/or sister that God says it’s wrong?

  155. #156 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    Simon, you ever stop to think how stupid you sound? Your god doesn’t exist and your bible is a work of fiction. Men made moral decisions long before Yahweh was invented, after he was invented, and will continue to make moral decisions long after Yahweh goes the way of all other gods. Men make morals, not gods.

  156. #157 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    Simon, how do you answer the Euthyphro dilemma?

  157. #158 Ichthyic
    March 2, 2009

    Simon just is posting so he can say fuck, even with asterisks.

    He’s not allowed to be naughty at home.

    c’mon, simon, you can do it!

    just let it alllll out…

    fuckity fuck fuck fuck.

    fuck the fucking motherfuckers.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26UA578yQ5g

  158. #159 Wowbagger
    March 2, 2009

    Simon, how do you answer the Euthyphro dilemma?

    Slow down, Kel – at this point you’re about 3 levels above Simon’s best*. He probably thinks it’s something to see a urologist about.

    *And that’s on a good day

  159. #160 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    Euthyphro dilemma

    I once caught a case of that from a hippie in New Orleans after a Widespread Panic Halloween show. Well let me tell you, it burne…

    Oh wait.

    Wrong thing.

    Nevermind

  160. #161 Intelligent Designer
    March 2, 2009

    the females don’t look as if they enjoy getting penetrated with it

    So it this representative of the kind of porn atheists like to watch?

  161. #162 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    So it this representative of the kind of porn atheists like to watch?

    It can’t lesbian nuns all the time…

  162. #163 Ichthyic
    March 2, 2009

    So it this representative of the kind of porn atheists like to watch?

    are you making a book on porn preferences, Stimpy?

    …tell us yours, first.

  163. #164 Wowbagger
    March 2, 2009

    ‘Intelligent’ Designer wrote:

    So it this representative of the kind of porn atheists like to watch?

    I like to watch videos of people taking dumps on other people dressed as clowns – which probably relates to why I don’t mind you being here, Randy…

  164. #165 Ichthyic
    March 2, 2009

    I like to watch videos of people taking dumps on other people dressed as clowns – which probably relates to why I don’t mind you being here, Randy…

    yeeouch!

    that’s gonna leave a mark.

  165. #166 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    That should say “It can’t be lesbian nuns all the time…”

  166. #167 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    I like to watch videos of people taking dumps on other people dressed as clowns – which probably relates to why I don’t mind you being here, Randy…

    2girls1stimpy

  167. #168 tresmal
    March 3, 2009

    Kel:”It can’t be lesbian nuns all the time…”

    Exactly! That’s why I like to mix in some lesbian catholic high school cheerleaders.

  168. #169 Kel
    March 3, 2009

    That’s why I like to mix in some lesbian catholic high school cheerleaders.

    Then there’s always the classic cult film, Christ Camp. 6 girls who have turned to the life of sin have their love for Christ renewed – literally! The scene where Kristina strips naked in front of the omnipresent eyes of God, then confesses her love for Jesus while being ‘touched’ by the holy spirit, it was pure freaking genius. The camp councellor using a crucifix-shaped vibrator while performing an exorcism on Samantha was a bit much though.

  169. #170 BMS
    March 3, 2009

    .

    is it allowed for atheists to f**k their mother and sisters ?

    Tidy, innit, how in that lovely little scenario he completely erases women (well, straight women) as independent actors.

    Methinks he shows more than one bias . . .

    .

  170. #171 Intelligent Designer
    March 3, 2009

    Wowbaggar, touché.

  171. #172 LKL
    March 3, 2009

    @Anon, #114:
    I had exactly the same thought. The FGM people can use it as divine proof that god wants female genitals to be mangled.

  172. #173 Walton
    March 3, 2009

    Simon:

    is it allowed for atheists to f**k their mother and sisters ? why not ?

    In my understanding, the reason human societies have generally prohibited incest is that such interbreeding vastly increases the chance of children being born with congenital defects. For this reason, most of us are biologically hardwired to find the concept of incest disgusting, and most legal and moral codes throughout history have banned it. This is a moral principle that doesn’t require a God to justify.

  173. #174 Walton
    March 3, 2009

    Kel @#169: That is absolutely disgusting.

    I will always consider porn to be immoral and degrading to women. I am not asserting that all women in the porn industry are exploited; I’m sure some of them (though certainly not all) choose what they do. But the fact is that pornography (from what I hear about it; I have very little experience of it myself) mostly portrays women in a way that is fundamentally humiliating and treats them as objects. This has inevitable effects for men’s attitude towards women in general.

    I know I’ve been accused here of being a misogynist, but I’m really not in the slightest. Indeed, from my own observations, sexism is a far bigger problem than racism in today’s political culture. Female candidates for office – from those in student politics at my own university, to Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin – are all judged on their appearance and dress in a way that men are not. Whenever an attractive woman succeeds in politics, she gets accused of being incompetent – whether she is or not – and of using her looks to win votes. Conversely, those women in the public sphere who are less attractive are constantly mocked for their appearance (I’m no fan of Senator Clinton, but I deplore the vile comments that were made about her in some circles). It is a vicious and unfair way of treating women. And sexism affects men as well; we are expected to conform to macho cultural expectations (as exemplified by the “Man Up” meme floating around the internet), to suppress emotions, to be able to deal with physical and mental adversity, and to be interested in certain things (such as sports, heavy drinking, cars and, indeed, pornography). This culture needs, IMO, to be changed.

    I am not preaching, nor is this anything to do with religious morality. Religious sexual morality can be absurd; there is nothing wrong with homosexuality or masturbation, nor can a person reasonably be expected to wait until marriage in order to have sex (and, indeed, such a rule encourages early and unwise marriages and therefore contributes to high rates of marital breakdown). This is a secular assessment of why we need to treat women in our society with more respect and dignity – and a good start would be the rejection of pornography.

    I hasten to add that as a classical liberal, I certainly don’t call for porn to be made illegal; free speech applies to offensive content, not just to that which we find acceptable. Rather, I am saying that decent and moral people should, in making their individual lifestyle choices, reject pornography.

  174. #175 Feynmaniac
    March 3, 2009

    Walton #173,

    I just like to add that while congenital defects are the reason societies have generally banned incest this isn’t the reason most people think it’s wrong. A study asked if two siblings slept together while using contraceptives is what they are doing wrong? Most people answered ‘yes’. When asked to explain why they simply couldn’t.

    I don’t think most people, including Christians, reason from some sort of higher code to find what’s morally right. The mind just simply seems to make an unconscious decision and people rationalize it afterward. Many Christians say homosexuality is a sin because of Leviticus, but seem to ignore the parts prohibiting the eating shellfish and wearing both cotton and polyester. Most Christians are definitely not using the Bible as their sole source of morality, thank God! :)

  175. #176 Kel
    March 3, 2009

    Kel @#169: That is absolutely disgusting.

    That was the whole point.

  176. #177 simon
    March 3, 2009

    @El #157

    Simon, how do you answer the Euthyphro dilemma?

    you can find the answer in THIS SITE
    Read slowly, no rush.

  177. #178 Kel
    March 3, 2009
    Simon, how do you answer the Euthyphro dilemma?

    http://www.meaning-of-life.info/IsThereaGod.html
    “euthyphro dilemma” – Phrase not found

  178. #179 simon
    March 3, 2009

    @itchy #158

    Simon just is posting so he can say fuck, even with asterisks.
    He’s not allowed to be naughty at home.
    c’mon, simon, you can do it!
    just let it alllll out…
    fuckity fuck fuck fuck.
    fuck the fucking motherfuckers.

    you recall me to Al Pacino! Are you his fans ??? or your father and mother taught you that ? how poor you are, far from happiness, boy.

  179. #180 simon
    March 3, 2009

    @Kel,
    read all you will find the answer.

  180. #181 Kel
    March 3, 2009

    read all you will find the answer.

    I read the bits on morality. Didn’t talk about the euthyphro dilemma and completely ignored all scientific evidence that morality is a social construct. It’s like they hadn’t even heard of game theory.

  181. #182 Stephen Wells
    March 3, 2009

    Can we take it, from simon’s post so far, that, if he weren’t afraid of his god, he would, if he could, fuck his mother and sisters?

    What an odious little person. Incest and rape, boiling in his fevered mind. He’s probably been reading too much of the old testament.

  182. #183 simon
    March 3, 2009

    @Kel

    God is immaterial and always good. Plato’s gods were material.

  183. #184 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    simon, your god doesn’t exist except between your ears. A worthless god. Good and evil are human constructs.

  184. #185 Kel
    March 3, 2009

    God is immaterial and always good. Plato’s gods were material.

    God being immaterial doesn’t stop the dilemma. You don’t have any clue, do you? May I ask why you are here? You are asking questions and not even listening to the answers. You are showing a complete absence of knowledge on anything to do with reality, and you are rivalling facilis for insipidity. Engage in some dialogue damn it rather than positing your faux-philosophical masturbation.

  185. #186 simon
    March 3, 2009

    Hello Nerd,

    i had stomachache when i read your argument below :

    As a matter of science, one does not have sex with close relatives.

    to support your argument your comrade, Mr Walton, explained this :
    #173
    In my understanding, the reason human societies have generally prohibited incest is that such interbreeding vastly increases the chance of children being born with congenital defects. For this reason, most of us are biologically hardwired to find the concept of incest disgusting, and most legal and moral codes throughout history have banned it. This is a moral principle that doesn’t require a God to justify.

    you can use condom guys, it is a scientific solution, Nerd !! ho ho ho…..

  186. #187 simon
    March 3, 2009

    @Kel,
    God being immaterial doesn’t stop the dilemma

    and God always good.

  187. #188 Kel
    March 3, 2009

    Simon, is the only thing stopping you having sex with your mother and/or sister that god says it’s wrong? I can think of many ways that we can explain why incest is so rare – that you grow up with them and form a non-sexual bond with them, that genetics wants us to sow our seeds as far away as possible in order to maintain diversity, that it’s socially looked down on, that reproduction can increase the risk of inherited diseases…

    Now what you must remember is that evolution is a gradual process, and you are looking at 2009 as if it’s an isolated situation. Quite simply for all those reasons above, we could hard-wire a disconnect between family relationships. Inbreeding had negative effects so it was selected against in our ancestry. Because it’s selected against, here we are now with incest being so rare in society.

    So I ask again Simon, why don’t you have sex with your mother and/or sister? If you knew there was no God, would you do so? If not, why not?

  188. #189 Kel
    March 3, 2009

    and God always good.

    Do you even understand the dilemma?

  189. #190 Wowbagger
    March 3, 2009

    Simple Simon wrote:

    and God always good

    Only if your definition of the word differs from all of those known to us – normal people use it to mean benevolent, positive, helpful. Your god, on the other hand, is a monster.

    If he isn’t a monster, then why did he kill almost all of humanity, on one occasion, out of caprice? Why did he order the Israelites to commit the murder, infanticide and genocide described in Numbers? Why does he allow people to be tortured in Hell for all eternity? Why did he send his son to be tortured and executed in order to forgive humanity when he could have just chosen to forgive them? Why did he make Job suffer just to win a bet?

    Your god, if he existed, would be the vilest, most repugnant creature ever devised; a foul, hateful, mass-murdering, genocidal tyrant. Fortunately, the only place such a creature can be found is in the limited minds of credulous wretches like you, who would no doubt love nothing more than to bring back the blood-soaked misery of the old testament so you could indulge your sick desires.

  190. #191 simon
    March 3, 2009

    @Kel,
    God is the First Cause.

    still a dilemma ? read the site again and slowly.

  191. #192 Kel
    March 3, 2009

    God is the First Cause. still a dilemma ?

    Yes! That doesn’t answer the dilemma at all!!! How can you be so fucking stupid?!?

  192. #193 Wowbagger
    March 3, 2009

    Simple Simon wrote:

    still a dilemma?

    I guess we can add ‘dilemma’ to the list of words Simon doesn’t know the meaning of – along with ‘good’.

  193. #194 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    Simon, god is delusion in your mind. If he/she/it is anything more, show physical evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, not natural origin, or be exposes as a liar and bullshitter.

  194. #195 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 3, 2009

    God is the First Cause.

    still a dilemma ? read the site again and slowly.

    Ugh. The cosmological yawngument.

    Turtles.

    Simon at what height were you dropped?

  195. #196 Kel
    March 3, 2009

    I read that website, it’s an extraordinarily bad piece of apologetics. For instance, check what it wrote on morality:

    Our morality, as we have just seen, must come from a higher moral authority than ourselves. Good must be good universally?we are not seeking a relative good that is good for one person but may be not good for another person.

    It really has no idea, no wonder simon is confused about our answers when that website doesn’t even begin to represent what morality is and how it works.

  196. #197 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    King of typos, meet prince of typos. #194 last sentence..or be exposesd….

  197. #198 Simon
    March 3, 2009

    @Wowbagger, #190

    because He is the creator, He can do anything to protect good people.
    He did not kill people, He just took His Creation. Probably they all went to heaven. His love more than His Justice.

  198. #199 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    Still no physical evidence. Simon is showing himself to be a liar and bullshitter. That makes him delusional, with nothing of importance to say. So Simon, get and present that physical evidence for your delusions.

  199. #200 Josh
    March 3, 2009

    He did not kill people, He just took His Creation.

    *blink*
    *blink*

    Wait…what?

    What the fuck does “taking his creation” mean?

    Probably they all went to heaven.

    Biblical support for that?

  200. #201 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 3, 2009

    because He is the creator, He can do anything to protect good people.
    He did not kill people, He just took His Creation. Probably they all went to heaven. His love more than His Justice.

    Yeah if you ignore the whole punishing humanity via devine retribution thing, sure.

    Have you actually read Genesis 6 ?

  201. #202 Kel
    March 3, 2009

    because He is the creator, He can do anything to protect good people.

    Got to love apologetics, though I guess if you buy into the trinity you’ll buy any god-coloured pill…

  202. #203 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    Simon is sounding like he is guinea short of a pound.

  203. #204 Kel
    March 3, 2009

    So by that logic, does a parent have a right to kill their disobedient children?

  204. #205 SC, OM
    March 3, 2009

    This is a secular assessment of why we need to treat women in our society with more respect and dignity – and a good start would be the rejection of pornography.

    I hasten to add that as a classical liberal, I certainly don’t call for porn to be made illegal; free speech applies to offensive content, not just to that which we find acceptable. Rather, I am saying that decent and moral people should, in making their individual lifestyle choices, reject pornography.

    Of course, the respect and dignity of working a shit job at Wal-Mart for garbage pay, living in your car, being spied on and drug-tested is precisely the kind of respect and dignity you think women deserve, if your policy propositions are any indication. Or working in a factory in China as basically a slave laborer making consumer goods to sell to people in the US who don’t really need them. Tell me, Walton, how do you think most of the girls and women who have exploitative jobs in the sex industry got there? By choice? They voluntarily signed fairly-negotiated contracts with employers? That industry is the embodiment of your unrestrained capitalism, and you think by frowning upon pornography and choosing not to partake you’re doing something decent and moral? Please. If you’re so concerned, why don’t you contact an organization by/for sex workers and try to understand where they’re coming from?

  205. #206 simon
    March 3, 2009

    @Nerd #199
    Still no physical evidence. Simon is showing himself to be a liar and bullshitter. That makes him delusional, with nothing of importance to say. So Simon, get and present that physical evidence for your delusions.

    What kind of god to make you believe ?
    your jelly meat is not big enough to understand God, he is immaterial and exist outside the universe.

    Logic and science are both products of this universe. God is not.

    So God cannot be a part of this material universe. We define God as the one and only entity that did not ever have to be created, and who brought this universe that we live in into existence from outside of it.

    “Why do we need a God to be good? Why can’t we do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do?”

    To be “good” implies that there is a higher, external authority of what is good and bad, independent of the entity (mankind) seeking to be good. You cannot even aspire to a good life unless you acknowledge that there is a standard against which “good” is to be judged. By acknowledging that there is indeed a “right thing to do,” you acknowledge a standard of right and wrong that exists independent of mankind on whom it is applied. That standard is what is called God. —> IMMATERIAL

    Without this higher authority, we could logically define “good” for each of us as that which makes us each the happiest. Bad would be what makes us unhappy. That leads to problems. It might make me happy to kill Bill Gates and live in his house and enjoy his money and power. But that would not be good for Bill Gates. So we have to reject that line of thought, because we are seeking a universal good, not just an individual good that might be bad from other perspectives. A universal good must come from outside ourselves.

    Nothing any animal does is “bad.” Animals act on instinct. For them there is neither right nor wrong. It is only because we are children of God that we perceive right and wrong, and can choose either. With no God, we would be like animals: everything we do would be free from any question of right or wrong.

    We cannot substitute “human race” for God. A sentient “human race” is not reality. We are all individuals; all separate, sentient beings, with completely separate free will. There is no collective consciousness.

    Read More

    look at this :

    John 1:1 ….and the Word is God —-> IMMATERIAL

  206. #207 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    Simon, if god is not part of this universe, he cannot interact with it. Period. That makes god irrelevant as you would know if you could think. So if god is not interacting with this universe, he cannot have anything to do with human morals. Yawn, you godbots are so stupid.

  207. #208 Stephen Wells
    March 3, 2009

    You can’t define God as “the one and only entity that did not have to be created” because (1) there could be many entities that did not have to be created (2) you’re using “created” in the created-by-god sense so it may be that NO entity had to be “created” (3) there is no reason why TOAOETDNHTBC should be a god. Let’s define “the Universe” as TOAOETDNHTBC; now there are no gods, only real things. Yay.

    Similarly, you don’t get to call morality “God” for the same reason that you can’t define the rules of chess as “Albert, the invisible dancing butler”.

    There is no “universal good”. Here on this little planet, we can try to get along. Play nice.

  208. #209 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 3, 2009

    Simon,

    How many times do we need to explain to you that social implications from herd and tribe times to now have evoled to a point that they are the moral standards. Are these standards razor thin? No, they vary however wide or slight depending on the culture in which you are looking.

    To be “good” implies that there is a higher, external authority of what is good and bad, independent of the entity (mankind) seeking to be good.

    Um. No.

    Without this higher authority, we could logically define “good” for each of us as that which makes us each the happiest. Bad would be what makes us unhappy. That leads to problems. It might make me happy to kill Bill Gates and live in his house and enjoy his money and power. But that would not be good for Bill Gates. So we have to reject that line of thought, because we are seeking a universal good, not just an individual good that might be bad from other perspectives. A universal good must come from outside ourselves.

    No because once again you are ignoring the implications of your actions.

    The whole passage you copy and pasted there is just a big assertion presupposing your whole argument. You have zero to back that up and we’ve shown where you are ignorant of other explanations that actually fit better with reality.

  209. #210 Stephen Wells
    March 3, 2009

    Oh, and @Simon: according to the old testament, the correct method to resolve disputes over the reality of different gods is via a competitive sacrifice contest by the priests of different religions. The real god is then supposed to drop fire from heaven to ignite his sacrifice, and the losers are to be massacred. Let us know when you can get your immaterial God lined up to do his conjuring tricks, then we can run the test. Alternatively, stop quoting the bible.

    Look it up in 1 Kings 18-40 if you don’t believe me.

  210. #211 Walton
    March 3, 2009

    Feynmaniac @175:

    A study asked if two siblings slept together while using contraceptives is what they are doing wrong? Most people answered ‘yes’. When asked to explain why they simply couldn’t.

    Yes, but isn’t this a result of our biological hardwiring against incest? Which, in turn, is a result of the fact that incest is bad for the species because of creating congenital birth defects? I would think that, just as (for instance) we’re hardwired not to like the taste of poisonous substances, because they’re bad for us, so too we’re hardwired not to have sex with our siblings, and instinctively find the idea disgusting, because such sex is bad for the species.

    But I don’t know – this is way outside my area of study and I’m just speculating.

  211. #212 Stephen Wells
    March 3, 2009

    We’re also hardwired to seek out sugars and fats in our diet. That was adaptive once; not so much now.

    I also get an instinctive “yuk” reaction at the incest concept. Then I engage my rational brain, and conclude that what ANY two consenting adults do in private with appropriate precautions is simply none of my business. Abuse, of course, is entirely different.

  212. #213 Stu
    March 3, 2009

    your jelly meat is not big enough to understand God

    Paging Dr. Freud…

  213. #214 eddie
    March 3, 2009

    Duh! Have you met my mom or sister?!

  214. #215 Ichthyic
    March 3, 2009

    your jelly meat is not big enough to understand God

    That is so going into my quotables-that-would-make-good-tshirts file.

    though I will probably just generalize it to:

    “Your jelly meat is not big enough to understand X!”

    awesomely obtuse.

    Simon was good for something after all!

  215. #216 Ichthyic
    March 3, 2009

    for some reason, jelly meat prompted me to think of this…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlYCVpPo1WQ

  216. #217 Carlie
    March 3, 2009

    Logic and science are both products of this universe. God is not.

    Simply stop there, and you have it.

  217. #218 simon
    March 3, 2009

    @Nerd #207

    Simon, if god is not part of this universe, he cannot interact with it. Period. That makes god irrelevant as you would know if you could think. So if god is not interacting with this universe, he cannot have anything to do with human morals. Yawn, you godbots are so stupid.

    good point.
    that’s why God incarnated to flesh,human being, in order to interact with world.

    Jn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh

  218. #219 Kel
    March 3, 2009

    that’s why God incarnated to flesh,human being, in order to interact with world.

    Do you have any actual evidence for this, such as a fragment of the cross so we can analyse Jesus’ DNA? Or even a shoe of christ? Or any historical artefact at all that once belonged to Jesus?

  219. #220 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    And that is why physical evidence for you imaginary deity should be available. So, put up the physical evidence that can be examined by scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers to determine that it is of divine, versus natural, origin, or you have a worthless, but still imaginary, god.

  220. #221 John Morales
    March 3, 2009

    But there’s copious evidence – the Holy Prepuce, for example. Not just one, either, but lots!

    So there.

  221. #222 Kel
    March 3, 2009

    But there’s copious evidence – the Holy Prepuce, for example. Not just one, either, but lots!

    Awesome, lets clone him.

  222. #223 E.V.
    March 3, 2009

    Awesome, lets clone him.

    I have to warn you though, he’s really small until you rub him.

  223. #224 simon
    March 3, 2009

    @Walton #174
    Religious sexual morality can be absurd; there is nothing wrong with homosexuality

    if it is not wrong, you can have sex with your father or brother vise versa. Polygamy or polyandry shouldn’t be wrong, pedophilia is also no wrong as long as it doesn’t create congenital birth defects.

    sounds scientific, agree ?

  224. #225 Kel
    March 3, 2009

    if it is not wrong, you can have sex with your father or brother vise versa. Polygamy or polyandry shouldn’t be wrong, pedophilia is also no wrong as long as it doesn’t create congenital birth defects.

    sounds scientific, agree ?

    For fucks sake simon, you really are a thick one.

  225. #226 Kel
    March 3, 2009

    simon, is the only thing stopping you from molesting children the fact that your god says not to? If not, then why the fuck do you think it’s different for everyone else?!?>

    God – a simple answer for a simple mind

  226. #227 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    Simon, you are arguing from absurdity again, and you know it. Which makes is a non-argument. So you are a pointless fool, but we already knew that. If you want to talk, talk without such baseless arguments. But you don’t have enough balls to leave the idiocy alone and just talk evidence.

  227. #228 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 3, 2009

    For fuck’s sake.

    Simon, you are an idiot.

  228. #229 simon
    March 3, 2009

    @Kel,
    Do you have any actual evidence for this, such as a fragment of the cross so we can analyse Jesus’ DNA? Or even a shoe of christ? Or any historical artefact at all that once belonged to Jesus?

    what for ?

    btw, are you a white Australian ?

  229. #230 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 3, 2009

    btw, are you a white Australian ?

    Are you a blue idiot?

  230. #231 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    Simon, avoiding showing any physical evidence for your imaginary god? I know so. Your god doesn’t exist, and your bible is a work of fiction. Men were deciding morals long before they invented your god. So your attempts to define god through morality is doomed to fail. We have historical evidence. So find another route if you are smart. I’m not holding my breath.

  231. #232 Kel
    March 3, 2009

    btw, are you a white Australian ?

    My skin colour is about as relevant as my age, gender and nationality. Again I ask: “Is the only thing stopping you having sex with your mother and/or sister that God commanded it to be wrong? If not, then how is that any different to everyone else?”

  232. #233 simon
    March 3, 2009

    @nerd #231
    Men were deciding morals long before they invented your god

    so you follow those man’s morality, don’t you ?
    no wonder you are allowed having sex with your father.
    Probably PZM also likes to have sex with you, have you asked him ?

  233. #234 Klokwurk
    March 3, 2009

    Simon @ 233

    so you follow those man’s morality, don’t you ?
    no wonder you are allowed having sex with your father.
    Probably PZM also likes to have sex with you, have you asked him ?

    You are a scary person. So, if your religion doesn’t expressly forbid something you would automatically do it?

  234. #235 Kel
    March 3, 2009

    so you follow those man’s morality, don’t you ?
    no wonder you are allowed having sex with your father.

    Do you even read what people have told you here about how morality works? Again, is the only thing stopping you having sex with your father because God says not to?

  235. #236 Stanton
    March 3, 2009

    This simon person tries hard to be obscene for Jesus, but, I doubt that Jesus would appreciate it if He knew. But I digress: simon has gotten very boring long ago with his holy-rolling wankery. How come no one has asked Professor Myers to plonk this twit in the Dungeon?

  236. #237 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 3, 2009

    Simon seems a little to focused on having sex with his parents.

    All this projecting isn’t hiding that.

    You’re a sick fuck simon.

  237. #238 simon
    March 3, 2009

    @Kel,

    My skin colour is about as relevant as my age, gender and nationality

    hiding something ? are you a ex-European or ex-North Korean ?

  238. #239 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 3, 2009

    So, Simon, I just want to be clear about this; you thing atheists wish to have gay sex with the sex appropriate parents? Funny, I am a lesbian but not once did I ever desire to have sex with my mother.

  239. #240 Kel
    March 4, 2009

    hiding something ? are you a ex-European or ex-North Korean ?

    Hiding something? Me? No. Tell you what, you tell me if the only reason you don’t have sex with your Mum and/or sister is because God says no, and then I’ll divulge about my recent ancestral path.

  240. #241 simon
    March 4, 2009

    @janine #239

    Funny, I am a lesbian but not once did I ever desire to have sex with my mother.

    have you asked her ? she might like it, may be to shy to tell you. Go and ask her : “It is ALLOWED, mom, come on relax we are not going to have a baby, scientifically ok”

    …ha ha ha…

  241. #242 Kel
    March 4, 2009

    Methinks Simon has Oedipus complex

  242. #243 Ichthyic
    March 4, 2009

    all in favor of cutting simon loose?

  243. #244 Rey Fox
    March 4, 2009

    “all in favor of cutting simon loose?”

    Are you kidding? What if he were to lose his faith? Then he’d be an out-of-the-closet sociopath!

  244. #245 Feynmaniac
    March 4, 2009

    Simon seems to have a bizarre obsession with Kel’s skin colour and sex with one’s parents.

  245. #246 John Morales
    March 4, 2009

    Ichthyic @243, “simon” is de-facto trolling, and though I think the intent is (probably) to mock morality outside of religious dogma the outcome is to reveal its own insecurities and warped thinking.

    The inept caperings are mildly amusing, so far.

  246. #247 doG
    March 4, 2009

    Simon I am a white Australian. Do you have something to say to me?

  247. #248 Josh
    March 4, 2009

    Simon, if your god hates homosexuals so much, and you think he created the world/universe, then perhaps you could tell me why he has such a problem with human homosexuality when he seems perfectly fine with homosexual activity in non-humans? Lots of non-human species engage in activity that I suspect would make the writer/s of Leviticus squirm. Aren’t those other species his children as well? Why would he instill so many of his creations with behavior patterns that he finds repugnant? Repugnant to the point of needing to make sure specific, if vague, prohibitions against those behaviors get written down. Why? Have animals also been given free will that results in torment if actually exercised? Or, if the rules for non-humans are different, then why are they different?

    And again, could you please tell me what the heck “taking his creation” means?

  248. #249 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 4, 2009

    I see Simple Simon doesn’t understand that morality, god, and religion are constructs made by men. Men. Not gods. Simple Simon, if your god exists, show physical evidence to prove it. Otherwise, you are a liar and bullshitter for positing something you can’t prove. BAWK BAWK BAWK

  249. #250 simon
    March 4, 2009

    @ #247
    Simon I am a white Australian. Do you have something to say to me?

    a white imperialist doG ?

  250. #251 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 4, 2009

    Simon what shade of idiot are you?

  251. #252 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 4, 2009

    Simon, quit being stupid. But then you are a godbot so stupid is expected. Your god exists only between your ears. Your morality is defined by men, not imaginary deities. Your bible is a work of fiction. Have a nice day.

  252. #253 doG
    March 4, 2009

    What? Is that a question?
    If so, my answer is no.

    … but what?

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.