This is the phallus of a beetle.
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.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Search
Profile
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
• Quick link to the latest endless thread
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
The devil is only a convenient myth invented by the real malefactors of our world.
[Robert Anton Wilson]
Recent Posts
- We're doomed. It's another sign of the apocalypse.
- A wonderful debate
- The world is ending, again
- Rudeness required
- Now I understand everything
- I get email
- Happy Carl Sagan Day!
- A poll in my own backyard
- A True Scotsman™ keeps his Bible in his sporran!
- Who does he think he is, Charles Dickens?
A Taste of Pharyngula
Recent Comments
- Olaf on The problem with the waffling middle
- RamziD on We're doomed. It's another sign of the apocalypse.
- Owlmirror on The cursed undead heart of the vengeful bride of the son of the thread that will not die!
- Rorschach on A wonderful debate
- MikeM on A wonderful debate
- tonyadamskklddrtotdfdf on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
- aratina cage on A wonderful debate
- not a gator on A wonderful debate
- Wowbagger, OM on A wonderful debate
- Bruce Gorton on Rudeness required
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Blogroll
Other Information
« Movie star for a day | Main | French toast, Belgian waffles…English measles »
You want to put WHAT in my what??!?
Category: Organisms
Posted on: March 1, 2009 3:56 PM, by PZ Myers
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/100966
Sign in or register with TypePad. Sign up with Movable Type.
Comments
Posted by: Carlie | March 1, 2009 4:03 PM
That's sperm competition for you. Bastards!
Posted by: Mike | March 1, 2009 4:05 PM
Even scarier pictures on Not Exactly Rocket Science along with details
Posted by: Alex Deam | March 1, 2009 4:06 PM
Hahahaha, but it's so puny and inferior!
Posted by: Braiden | March 1, 2009 4:09 PM
Too bad it needed to be killed and stained with heavy metals to get the picture. Beetle porn might be interesting.
Posted by: Missus Gumby | March 1, 2009 4:09 PM
(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.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | March 1, 2009 4:09 PM
Design in action!
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Hank Fox | March 1, 2009 4:10 PM
Makes me think of the Hitler-pineapple scene from the movie "Little Nicky." Only it's Rush Limbaugh. And this thing.
Posted by: Devysciple | March 1, 2009 4:12 PM
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...
Posted by: robhoofd | March 1, 2009 4:12 PM
Surely, this proves there must be a Creator!
Posted by: Josh | March 1, 2009 4:12 PM
god is an asshole.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 1, 2009 4:13 PM
God is one sick fuck, designing it like that.
Posted by: Anon | March 1, 2009 4:16 PM
And Ringo still landed Barbara Bach.
Wow.
Posted by: slang | March 1, 2009 4:18 PM
Certainly gives a different feel to the word beetlejuice.
Posted by: GeoffR | March 1, 2009 4:20 PM
What you're looking at there is the reason there are no gay beetles.
Posted by: Sclerophanax | March 1, 2009 4:26 PM
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. ;)
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 1, 2009 4:33 PM
You always hurt
The one you love,
The one (hey!) you shouldn't hurt at all
(sing it with me...)
[/bill murray]
Posted by: Patricia, OM | March 1, 2009 4:36 PM
Hank Fox - Funny, I thought of that same Hitler/pineapple scene too. ;) And Young Frankensteen.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 1, 2009 4:39 PM
I wonder what Barb will have to say about this.
"Proof that sex is evil!!"
Posted by: Kel | March 1, 2009 4:40 PM
I'm still trying to figure out if it looks more like a cobra or something out of an Alien movie.
Posted by: Enkidu | March 1, 2009 4:42 PM
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.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | March 1, 2009 4:44 PM
How about a picture of the torn up female tract? Heh heh heh...
Beetle porn...
Posted by: TigerHunter | March 1, 2009 4:45 PM
@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.
Posted by: www.10ch.org/ | March 1, 2009 4:46 PM
Religious nuts would use this to say, "God surely designed sex as something evil!!!" or... something...
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 1, 2009 4:48 PM
from the "not rocket science" article linked to by mike:
I'd give my right pinky to see the grant app. for that one.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | March 1, 2009 4:55 PM
Mike @2 - Gee, thanks for that link. EEEeeewwwww!
Posted by: DLC | March 1, 2009 4:57 PM
Hm. that'd be a good pic to keep for when you need something to stick over the Boss' photo.
Posted by: Shane | March 1, 2009 4:58 PM
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...
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 1, 2009 4:59 PM
new job title:
"Professional Beetle Fluffer"
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 1, 2009 5:01 PM
How about a picture of the torn up female tract?
it figures SfO would have that fetish.
go away, Scott.
fucking twit.
Posted by: Odonata | March 1, 2009 5:03 PM
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
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 1, 2009 5:08 PM
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.
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
March 1, 2009 5:18 PM
Well, evolutionists, I hope you're happy. This is just what you get if you let naturalism run wild. Well, that and Hitler.
Posted by: keely | March 1, 2009 5:20 PM
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...
Posted by: Wowbagger | March 1, 2009 5:30 PM
You've also experienced it if anyone near you has ever played a Céline Dion album...
Posted by: Jules | March 1, 2009 5:32 PM
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.
Posted by: Geoff | March 1, 2009 5:34 PM
Best Single Argument against
Intelligent DesignCreationism Ever!Science wins the internet ... again!
Posted by: Bryn | March 1, 2009 5:37 PM
You think [i]you[/i] cringe looking at it??!???
Posted by: Bryn | March 1, 2009 5:39 PM
(After having another cola)
You think you cringe just looking at it??!???
(That'll teach me not to preview.)
Posted by: Wowbagger | March 1, 2009 5:40 PM
Perhaps the design team spent a few hours in the entomology department whilst coming up with the concept for the alien in Alien.
Posted by: Kitty'sBitch
|
March 1, 2009 5:45 PM
Yeah, that happened to me once in the nineties.
They have an ointment that clears it right up.
Posted by: Tommykey | March 1, 2009 5:54 PM
The antidote to vagina dentata.
Posted by: Marc Abian | March 1, 2009 5:54 PM
Spiked for her pleasure.
Posted by: Michael Fonda | March 1, 2009 5:56 PM
Wow, talk about being a prick.
Posted by: Alex Deam | March 1, 2009 5:57 PM
We may need a bigger mantelpiece.
Posted by: Stark | March 1, 2009 6:01 PM
God is a Dick! Get it?? Get it? :D :(
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
March 1, 2009 6:21 PM
Now I understand why female mantises kill the males during sex.
Posted by: David | March 1, 2009 6:21 PM
sexy!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 1, 2009 6:26 PM
That is obviously a French beetle
Posted by: windy | March 1, 2009 6:26 PM
I wonder what Joan Roughgarden would say. Those beetles must be "co-operating". Yeah, that's it.
Enkidu:
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."
Posted by: Horse-Pheathers | March 1, 2009 6:34 PM
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'.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 1, 2009 6:41 PM
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.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 1, 2009 6:48 PM
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.
Posted by: Terskac | March 1, 2009 6:49 PM
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
Posted by: Nix | March 1, 2009 6:56 PM
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.
Posted by: windy | March 1, 2009 7:00 PM
Terskac: that's true, but we were talking about Roughgarden wanting to replace sexual selection theory with "co-operative games".
Posted by: mikeg | March 1, 2009 7:06 PM
needle dick bug fucker... for real
Posted by: Roger | March 1, 2009 7:19 PM
Maybe beetles like it rough?
Posted by: blueelm | March 1, 2009 7:46 PM
Woah. I feel lucky to be a female human now.
Posted by: Insightful Ape | March 1, 2009 7:46 PM
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.
Posted by: ChrisKG | March 1, 2009 7:47 PM
Ribbed, for her pleasure.
;-)
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | March 1, 2009 7:51 PM
Morningstar goes WHERE?
Posted by: Daumier | March 1, 2009 7:52 PM
There really is no god.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | March 1, 2009 7:53 PM
Dammit.
<lolcaption type="obligatory">
Morningstar goes WHERE?
</lolcaption>
Posted by: eyeofhorus | March 1, 2009 8:01 PM
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.
Posted by: eyeofhorus | March 1, 2009 8:11 PM
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.
Posted by: DEconStructualiST | March 1, 2009 8:27 PM
A prick discussing pricks. You should be good at this science Myers, I'm sure you're an expert on pricks.
Posted by: Boletus | March 1, 2009 8:33 PM
Yummmm. What's for dinner?
Posted by: Mr. Beetle | March 1, 2009 8:33 PM
You're such a dirty girl. I think you need a good scrubbing.
Posted by: Kitty'sBitch
|
March 1, 2009 8:42 PM
DEconStructualiST
Really?
That's the best you can do?
Hahaha wow, that is neither clever nor interesting.
Pass.
Posted by: Enkidu | March 1, 2009 8:43 PM
DEconStructualiST:
All of us regular readers are . . . we see so many. Well, so many plus one now.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 1, 2009 8:44 PM
And the award for weakest insult of the weekend goes to
DEconStructualiST
CONGRATULATIONS!!!
you fail.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 1, 2009 8:51 PM
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*
Posted by: Dutchdoc
|
March 1, 2009 8:53 PM
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
"
Posted by: Patricia, OM | March 1, 2009 8:56 PM
A prick discussing pricks...*snort* That doesn't even deserve a cootie.
Better trolls please!
Posted by: Oliver | March 1, 2009 9:01 PM
@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.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 1, 2009 9:02 PM
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.
Posted by: Kitty'sBitch
|
March 1, 2009 9:03 PM
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.
Posted by: Insightful Ape | March 1, 2009 9:04 PM
DE, I didn't know the trolls were getting so desperate.
Posted by: Klokwurk
|
March 1, 2009 9:08 PM
Haven't we all been there... right fellas? ... fellas?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 1, 2009 9:10 PM
Usually depends on the ratio of Bourbon to Blood in my body.
Oh wait. Am I sharing too much?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
March 1, 2009 9:11 PM
At least the troll didn't call PZ a poopyhead.
Posted by: Kitty'sBitch
|
March 1, 2009 9:11 PM
Klokwurk
Uh...I don't...I mean...sorry.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
March 1, 2009 9:13 PM
In a word, no.
Posted by: Julian | March 1, 2009 9:16 PM
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.
Posted by: Kel | March 1, 2009 9:22 PM
I have not. Is it fun?Posted by: Klokwurk
|
March 1, 2009 9:28 PM
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. ;)
Posted by: Patricia, OM | March 1, 2009 9:28 PM
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!
Posted by: JoeSixpack | March 1, 2009 9:29 PM
I can't think of anything witty.
Posted by: Kel | March 1, 2009 9:30 PM
Sounds like the life of a prostitute ;)Posted by: JeffreyD | March 1, 2009 9:34 PM
Man, does that bring back my days in the porn industry.
What? Whadda ya mean the mic is open????
Posted by: Oliver | March 1, 2009 9:34 PM
@Julian
I was going to encourage DEconStructuraliST to raise his game, but I don't think he can get it up.
Posted by: Boletus | March 1, 2009 9:37 PM
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! ;-)
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 1, 2009 9:42 PM
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
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
Posted by: Patricia, OM | March 1, 2009 9:58 PM
JefferyD - A big bosomy hug!
Posted by: JeffreyD | March 1, 2009 10:00 PM
Hugs back, dear, dear Patricia darling. How are chickies?
Ciao, dear lady.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 1, 2009 10:02 PM
Ichthyic, did you actually relocate? As in, expatriate?
Oh, look! There's JeffreyD!
Posted by: Stephanurus | March 1, 2009 10:03 PM
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
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 1, 2009 10:06 PM
I wonder if it is anything like Giger's "Penis Landscape"
Posted by: JeffreyD | March 1, 2009 10:12 PM
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
Posted by: Leigh Williams | March 1, 2009 10:28 PM
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.
Posted by: Dust | March 1, 2009 10:30 PM
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............
Posted by: CortxVortx | March 1, 2009 10:34 PM
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)
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 1, 2009 10:39 PM
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.
Posted by: Dust | March 1, 2009 10:41 PM
Found it!
http://picasaweb.google.com/daghis/Miscellaneous#5152474737081268194
Posted by: AdmiralNaismith | March 1, 2009 10:50 PM
Is that beetle evidence in favor of the "Incompetent Design" theory?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 1, 2009 11:00 PM
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).
Posted by: Blondin | March 1, 2009 11:36 PM
"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"!
Posted by: Tanystropheus | March 2, 2009 12:01 AM
Another example of 'intelligent' design, no doubt.
Posted by: C. M. Baxter | March 2, 2009 1:02 AM
If beetle-kind achieve worldwide hegemony after the human demise, I foresee global domestic discontent. Divorce lawyers will reign supreme.
Posted by: Rodger T NZ
|
March 2, 2009 1:04 AM
Me so thorny
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 2, 2009 1:05 AM
nice
Posted by: YIKES | March 2, 2009 1:08 AM
Now at least tell me that female beetles like to attack and eat the males afterward!!
Posted by: ChimaeraLaurie | March 2, 2009 1:14 AM
Hells bloody bells! I can tell you that my husband wouldn't be allowed anywhere near me if he looked like that.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 2, 2009 1:35 AM
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.
Posted by: Strangebrew | March 2, 2009 5:47 AM
*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!
Posted by: Stephen Wells | March 2, 2009 6:09 AM
I just followed the porcupine link and... for the love of mercy it has retractable fangs. I'll never sleep well again.
Posted by: DuckPhup | March 2, 2009 6:27 AM
Now that is brilliant.
Posted by: Masks of Eris | March 2, 2009 6:41 AM
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.
Posted by: Logicel | March 2, 2009 6:59 AM
#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?
Posted by: eddie | March 2, 2009 7:08 AM
I seem to recall there was another verse about Cocks on Ticks but it got censored.
Posted by: JeffreyD | March 2, 2009 7:25 AM
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
Posted by: Irony | March 2, 2009 7:36 AM
Did anyone else notice that the last name of the author of that article is Amore?
Posted by: SC, OM | March 2, 2009 7:58 AM
JeffreyD! Glad to hear you're doing well! How was the wedding?
Posted by: Mike | March 2, 2009 8:04 AM
Talk about HORNY!!!! Aahahahahaha... but seriously.
Posted by: JeffreyD | March 2, 2009 8:17 AM
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
Posted by: Knockgoats | March 2, 2009 8:21 AM
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.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | March 2, 2009 8:46 AM
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.
Posted by: SC, OM | March 2, 2009 8:50 AM
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).
Posted by: astrounit | March 2, 2009 9:01 AM
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"....
Posted by: J | March 2, 2009 9:10 AM
Everything looks bigger under an electron microscope...
Posted by: astrounit | March 2, 2009 9:15 AM
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.
Posted by: Diane | March 2, 2009 9:20 AM
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.
Posted by: RichVR | March 2, 2009 9:22 AM
@CortxVortx #102:
THAT was the name of that book. Thanks. I loved it as a kid, must find it used and purchase.
Posted by: SC, OM | March 2, 2009 9:30 AM
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."
Posted by: Carlie | March 2, 2009 9:39 AM
Thanks for the update, SC - I've really been missing MAJeff! Tell him we send best wishes for the defense.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 2, 2009 9:55 AM
Carlie
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.Posted by: Peter Ashby | March 2, 2009 10:37 AM
@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.
Posted by: frog | March 2, 2009 12:12 PM
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.
Posted by: astrounit | March 2, 2009 12:20 PM
#136: Nerd of Redhead vis Carlie: Seconded!
I've been away. What happened?
Posted by: Chuck | March 2, 2009 1:33 PM
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!
Posted by: eddie | March 2, 2009 2:56 PM
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.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 2, 2009 5:48 PM
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)
Posted by: mandrake | March 2, 2009 5:50 PM
Ichthyic @ 93 -
Yes, there are probably lots of better places to fuck.
Posted by: simon | March 2, 2009 9:40 PM
@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 ?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 2, 2009 9:44 PM
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.
Posted by: E.V. | March 2, 2009 9:44 PM
You're a pretty sick fuck Simon. You are definitely ban material.
Posted by: Kel | March 2, 2009 9:45 PM
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.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 2, 2009 9:49 PM
..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.
Posted by: Kel | March 2, 2009 9:52 PM
Simon, is the only thing stopping you fucking your mother and / or sister that God says it's wrong?
Posted by: E.V. | March 2, 2009 9:53 PM
Although incest is a reoccurring theme in the OT. Jewish and Greek bachelors cavorting together is the theme of the NT.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 2, 2009 9:54 PM
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?
Posted by: E.V. | March 2, 2009 10:04 PM
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?Posted by: simon | March 2, 2009 10:33 PM
@ #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 ?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 2, 2009 10:38 PM
You're an idiot. We happen to be able to make decisions based on more than just animal instincts.
Posted by: Kel | March 2, 2009 10:38 PM
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?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 2, 2009 10:38 PM
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.
Posted by: Kel | March 2, 2009 10:42 PM
Simon, how do you answer the Euthyphro dilemma?
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 2, 2009 10:47 PM
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
Posted by: Wowbagger | March 2, 2009 10:53 PM
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
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 2, 2009 11:00 PM
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
Posted by: Intelligent Designer | March 2, 2009 11:33 PM
So it this representative of the kind of porn atheists like to watch?
Posted by: Kel | March 2, 2009 11:35 PM
It can't lesbian nuns all the time...Posted by: Ichthyic | March 2, 2009 11:40 PM
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.
Posted by: Wowbagger | March 2, 2009 11:40 PM
'Intelligent' Designer wrote:
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...
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 2, 2009 11:42 PM
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.
Posted by: Kel | March 2, 2009 11:42 PM
That should say "It can't be lesbian nuns all the time..."
Posted by: Kel | March 2, 2009 11:45 PM
2girls1stimpyPosted by: tresmal | March 3, 2009 12:22 AM
Exactly! That's why I like to mix in some lesbian catholic high school cheerleaders.Posted by: Kel | March 3, 2009 12:41 AM
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.Posted by: BMS | March 3, 2009 12:48 AM
.
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 . . .
.
Posted by: Intelligent Designer | March 3, 2009 2:18 AM
Wowbaggar, touché.
Posted by: LKL | March 3, 2009 4:15 AM
@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.
Posted by: Walton | March 3, 2009 5:10 AM
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.
Posted by: Walton | March 3, 2009 5:28 AM
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.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 3, 2009 5:32 AM
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! :)
Posted by: Kel | March 3, 2009 5:39 AM
That was the whole point.Posted by: simon | March 3, 2009 5:43 AM
@El #157
Simon, how do you answer the Euthyphro dilemma?
you can find the answer in THIS SITE
Read slowly, no rush.
Posted by: Kel | March 3, 2009 5:48 AM
Posted by: simon | March 3, 2009 5:53 AM
@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.
Posted by: simon | March 3, 2009 5:56 AM
@Kel,
read all you will find the answer.
Posted by: Kel | March 3, 2009 6:04 AM
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.Posted by: Stephen Wells | March 3, 2009 6:11 AM
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.
Posted by: simon | March 3, 2009 6:59 AM
@Kel
God is immaterial and always good. Plato's gods were material.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 3, 2009 7:02 AM
simon, your god doesn't exist except between your ears. A worthless god. Good and evil are human constructs.
Posted by: Kel | March 3, 2009 7:13 AM
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.Posted by: simon | March 3, 2009 7:17 AM
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.....
Posted by: simon | March 3, 2009 7:23 AM
@Kel,
God being immaterial doesn't stop the dilemma
and God always good.
Posted by: Kel | March 3, 2009 7:25 AM
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?
Posted by: Kel | March 3, 2009 7:28 AM
Do you even understand the dilemma?Posted by: Wowbagger | March 3, 2009 7:35 AM
Simple Simon wrote:
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.
Posted by: simon | March 3, 2009 7:39 AM
@Kel,
God is the First Cause.
still a dilemma ? read the site again and slowly.
Posted by: Kel | March 3, 2009 7:41 AM
Yes! That doesn't answer the dilemma at all!!! How can you be so fucking stupid?!?Posted by: Wowbagger | March 3, 2009 7:44 AM
Simple Simon wrote:
I guess we can add 'dilemma' to the list of words Simon doesn't know the meaning of - along with 'good'.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 3, 2009 7:48 AM
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.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 3, 2009 7:50 AM
Ugh. The cosmological yawngument.
Turtles.
Simon at what height were you dropped?
Posted by: Kel | March 3, 2009 7:52 AM
I read that website, it's an extraordinarily bad piece of apologetics. For instance, check what it wrote on morality:
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.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 3, 2009 7:53 AM
King of typos, meet prince of typos. #194 last sentence..or be expose
sd....Posted by: Simon | March 3, 2009 7:55 AM
@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.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 3, 2009 8:04 AM
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.
Posted by: Josh | March 3, 2009 8:07 AM
*blink*
*blink*
Wait...what?
What the fuck does "taking his creation" mean?
Biblical support for that?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 3, 2009 8:09 AM
Yeah if you ignore the whole punishing humanity via devine retribution thing, sure.
Have you actually read Genesis 6 ?
Posted by: Kel | March 3, 2009 8:13 AM
Got to love apologetics, though I guess if you buy into the trinity you'll buy any god-coloured pill...Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 3, 2009 8:15 AM
Simon is sounding like he is guinea short of a pound.
Posted by: Kel | March 3, 2009 8:20 AM
So by that logic, does a parent have a right to kill their disobedient children?
Posted by: SC, OM | March 3, 2009 8:29 AM
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?
Posted by: simon | March 3, 2009 9:11 AM
@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
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 3, 2009 9:20 AM
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.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | March 3, 2009 9:27 AM
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.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 3, 2009 9:27 AM
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.
Um. No.
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.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | March 3, 2009 9:43 AM
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.
Posted by: Walton | March 3, 2009 9:47 AM
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.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | March 3, 2009 9:52 AM
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.
Posted by: Stu
|
March 3, 2009 10:42 AM
your jelly meat is not big enough to understand God
Paging Dr. Freud...
Posted by: eddie | March 3, 2009 2:37 PM
Duh! Have you met my mom or sister?!
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 3, 2009 6:32 PM
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!
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 3, 2009 6:35 PM
for some reason, jelly meat prompted me to think of this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlYCVpPo1WQ
Posted by: Carlie | March 3, 2009 6:51 PM
Logic and science are both products of this universe. God is not.
Simply stop there, and you have it.
Posted by: simon | March 3, 2009 10:25 PM
@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
Posted by: Kel | March 3, 2009 10:29 PM
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?Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 3, 2009 10:30 PM
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.
Posted by: John Morales | March 3, 2009 10:44 PM
But there's copious evidence - the Holy Prepuce, for example. Not just one, either, but lots!
So there.
Posted by: Kel | March 3, 2009 10:57 PM
Awesome, lets clone him.Posted by: E.V. | March 3, 2009 11:01 PM
I have to warn you though, he's really small until you rub him.Posted by: simon | March 3, 2009 11:15 PM
@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 ?
Posted by: Kel | March 3, 2009 11:20 PM
For fucks sake simon, you really are a thick one.Posted by: Kel | March 3, 2009 11:24 PM
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
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 3, 2009 11:24 PM
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.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 3, 2009 11:28 PM
For fuck's sake.
Simon, you are an idiot.
Posted by: simon | March 3, 2009 11:29 PM
@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 ?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 3, 2009 11:31 PM
Are you a blue idiot?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 3, 2009 11:33 PM
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.
Posted by: Kel | March 3, 2009 11:35 PM
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?"Posted by: simon | March 3, 2009 11:50 PM
@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 ?
Posted by: Klokwurk
|
March 3, 2009 11:55 PM
Simon @ 233
You are a scary person. So, if your religion doesn't expressly forbid something you would automatically do it?
Posted by: Kel | March 3, 2009 11:56 PM
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?Posted by: Stanton | March 3, 2009 11:57 PM
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?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 3, 2009 11:58 PM
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.
Posted by: simon | March 3, 2009 11:59 PM
@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 ?
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 3, 2009 11:59 PM
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.
Posted by: Kel | March 4, 2009 12:02 AM
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.Posted by: simon | March 4, 2009 12:15 AM
@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...
Posted by: Kel | March 4, 2009 12:19 AM
Methinks Simon has Oedipus complex
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 4, 2009 12:21 AM
all in favor of cutting simon loose?
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 4, 2009 12:31 AM
"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!
Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 4, 2009 12:43 AM
Simon seems to have a bizarre obsession with Kel's skin colour and sex with one's parents.
Posted by: John Morales | March 4, 2009 1:10 AM
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.
Posted by: doG | March 4, 2009 6:10 AM
Simon I am a white Australian. Do you have something to say to me?
Posted by: Josh | March 4, 2009 6:33 AM
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?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 4, 2009 7:51 AM
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
Posted by: simon | March 4, 2009 8:00 AM
@ #247
Simon I am a white Australian. Do you have something to say to me?
a white imperialist doG ?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 4, 2009 8:04 AM
Simon what shade of idiot are you?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 4, 2009 8:05 AM
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.
Posted by: doG | March 4, 2009 6:33 PM
What? Is that a question?
If so, my answer is no.
... but what?