…and this is a 
I'm feeling a bit jealous. A teacher was suspended for assigning a reading from one of those subversive, radical bloggers, and it wasn't me! It was Jonah Lehrer!
The article was about the prevalence of homosexuality among animals. Apparently the thought that homosexuality might occur naturally, rather than being a purely human sin, does not sit well with certain people. I thought the most objectionable part of the article was Roughgarden's blithe panadaptationism ("Given the pervasive presence of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom, same-sex partnering must be an adaptive trait that's been carefully preserved by natural selection." Bleh.)
Congratulations to Jonah, however, for being offensive without even trying. Impressive.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: littlejohn | November 1, 2009 8:35 AM
My gay cat, Big Grey Al, contributed a hairball to this discussion today. Al contributes nothing in terms of evolution. He's not only gay, he's fixed.
Posted by: James Sweet | November 1, 2009 9:00 AM
Argh, the article is terrible and, unless this woman's theory is being grossly misrepresented, it doesn't make any damn sense.
It really felt like a lot of "moralistic fallacy"-type reasoning. "There's nothing wrong with being gay" (obviously) "so therefore it must be a powerful evolutionary adaptation". Uh...
Posted by: abz | November 1, 2009 9:13 AM
"If I am (as Professor Dawkins says) "an ignorant fool," why are so many feeling threatened by what I've written?"
because you're an ignorant fool?
Posted by: abz | November 1, 2009 9:17 AM
sorry, that comment didn't appear under the post I indended it to! oops :S
Posted by: Mickle | November 1, 2009 9:33 AM
First time poster, long time reader.
So, what's wrong with the article? It's certainly not "moralistic fallacy". My biology teacher in college (mid nineties) often wondered how if homosexuality had a genetic component, how that component was passed on. Was he an idiot? Seems like this article goes a long way towards answering that question.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
November 1, 2009 9:39 AM
This is one of those things that just gets so fucking tedious. They want to erase lgbt folks from society, and even any discourse about same-sex activity from the natural world. This is the same as the parents who object to their students being told that some of their classmates have gay parents (like the Parkers from Lexington, WA who've been pimping themselves out everywhere). It's of a while with the Bush Secretary of Education attacking PBS for showing a kid growing up with two moms on Buster's show. It's the same as bigoted parents objecting to a storybook about the two male penguins nesting. It's of a whole with the child-rapist protectors in Massachusetts forcing Catholic charities to withdraw from a state contract and allow children to remain within the foster care system rather than follow state law and accept gay folks as adoptive parents, or voters in Arkansas amending their constitution to make sure gay folks--and any other unmarried people--can't adopt. It's the ads in every fucking ballot measure campaign exploiting children to invoke hatred of queers.
Fuck 'em. Bury 'em. Laugh at 'em as they weep. Worthless scum.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
November 1, 2009 9:41 AM
Oops, Lexington MA--they've been pimping themselves out in WA
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
November 1, 2009 9:46 AM
and I even forgot the most recent attacks on Kevin Jennings.
Posted by: coleslaw
|
November 1, 2009 10:02 AM
Are people feeling threatened by what you write? What is your evidence for concluding that?
Even if you can establish that they are, it is certainly within the level of competence of ignorant fools to make threats. I know not-particularly-bright three year olds who can make threats. It's an easily acquired skill and not an impressive one.
Now if you could say, without bending the truth "If I am (as Professor Dawkins says) "an ignorant fool," why do I have a Nobel Prize in Physics and speak six languages fluently", you might have a point.
Posted by: Erp | November 1, 2009 10:03 AM
My understanding is that the students were meant to critique the article as an example of persuasive speech (this was an English class) so having it a bit controversial was ideal. In additional it was optional; there were other articles each student could have chosen to examine.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
November 1, 2009 10:10 AM
coleslaw, see the next comment by abz. S/he was quoting Comfort for the thread above and even noted posting on the wrong thread.....
Posted by: Quarks | November 1, 2009 10:12 AM
There was a very interesting programe on prime time BBC, I think it was called "The Secret Life of Twins" where there were two identical twin brothers one gay and one straight. They found they each had different parts of there genes activated.
Posted by: coleslaw
|
November 1, 2009 10:14 AM
Yes, I noticed that when I read the comments in the other thread. Oh, well. But my point still stands - threatening people is well within the competence of ignorant fools.
Posted by: Stephen P | November 1, 2009 11:19 AM
I first read that as PZ being jealous because he hadn't been suspended. Oh well, maybe that applies as well.
Posted by: chuckgoecke
|
November 1, 2009 11:55 AM
Two comments, first the comments on the linked article are interesting, and could be summarized by one guy, representing the right(el opuesto) saying that the material was inappropriate for the class because it strayed outside of "English", as if school classes were compartmentalized domains, nary the teacher to stray from. What a dolt! The rest of the posters shoot him down pretty well.
The second point, is the actual science and the conjecture about its importance. I suspect that the full research of this area of study has yet to be done, and has lagged because of most animal behavior scientists' lack of interest/balls to do the research. Joan Roughgarden may not have the degree of non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals fully and accurately delineated, but she's made a pretty good start. More population studies with statistical analysis are needed to fully complete this science - hard, time consuming field research. Perhaps if only The Gay Scientists would get involved, things would go faster: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzbNkyXO50
Posted by: Sastra | November 1, 2009 11:56 AM
The article in Seed flirts with the naturalistic fallacy -- if something is natural, or normal, or 'adaptive,' then it is good. It's what nature intended us to do, and that means it's right. Abnormalities or anomalies are bad.
That doesn't hold at all of course -- at least, it will depend on your definition of "good." If rape, violence, and war can be shown to be propensities passed along on genetic traits and selected for over time, would that make these things "good?"
But I suspect the teacher was suspended for factors other than -- or in addition to -- the unwarranted moral-drawing, though. Look at the very first paragraph:
The article is filled with salient and (esp to teenagers) salacious little details like that. I have no problems with this being given to high school students myself -- but parents often go ape-shit over anything having to do with sex at all, for 'children' of any age, let alone graphic descriptions. The poor little dears are going to get ideas! Their innocence will be taken from them by agents of the State!
I'm willing to bet they're going to try to make a case leaning less on the "homosexuality is normal" angle, and more on the "genital licking and anal intercourse" is inappropriate language for Our Babies angle.
Posted by: Bill | November 1, 2009 12:07 PM
The Figures below are facts, abstracted from the California State Dept. of Health census, about the incidence of HIV up through 2009
Men who have sex with men 23528 (76%)
Men who have sex with men and use drugs 2343 ( 8%)
Injection drug use 1684 (5%)
Heterosexual contact 926 ( 3%)
Risk not reported/Other 2263 ( 7%)
Total (100%)
Of course, being facts, one is not allowed to mention this in California. So, keep advancing the "normality" of Homosexuality, PZ. You in Minnesota can also experience watching ill young men expire daily in your society, like the many people who were our friends, more than a score that we knew, dying over a decade here in SF...
Posted by: djinn | November 1, 2009 12:16 PM
I don't notice "women having sex with women" on your list, Bill. I shall assume you give a pass to lesbians. Yay! How thoughtful. It's a start.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 1, 2009 12:19 PM
Since Sub-Saharan Africa the predominant method of transmission is via heterosexual sex, it is heterosexuality that is not normal on that continent.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
November 1, 2009 12:19 PM
oh give it up Bill. you love dead faggots.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | November 1, 2009 12:20 PM
I haven't yet read Jonah's books, but I saw him on CSpan over the summer. An extremely impressive young man.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 1, 2009 12:24 PM
Let me try that again.
Since in Sub-Saharan Africa the predominant method of transmission is via heterosexual sex, it is heterosexuality that is not normal on that continent ?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 1, 2009 12:34 PM
Sastra's right, as per usual. This seems (mostly) about the appropriateness of discussing sex in English class, not homosexuality in school.
I'll add that there is no way in hell that those high-school English students had the biological background knowledge necessary to meaningfully evaluate Roughgarden's assertions. It was a crappy assignment all around. Shame to get fired for it, though.
Posted by: CSue | November 1, 2009 12:37 PM
Uh, Bill? Links, PLZ, or you're making it up.
Posted by: Yoritomo
|
November 1, 2009 12:51 PM
Sven @23:
According to hearsay, "the actual assignment for this article was to get students to analyze how authors formulate their arguments and analyze how the author's personal bias and agenda affect the piece". You don't necessarily need to understand all that much biology for that kind of assignment. You could probably make the same assignment for Time Cube which no one understands at all - but Time Cube's author is worse at formulating his arguments.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
November 1, 2009 12:52 PM
It's possible for all the conjectures to be true, in part:
* that normal sexuality is heterosex or predominantly so
* that sexuality in mammals is plastic and will sometimes become homosex
* that there's a genetic or prenatal-environment component
* that there's an experiential component
* that a genetic component could be conserved by supplying heterosex breeders with a third, related "helper parent"
* that homosex bonding encourages societal bonding in a larger group than the family
Taken together, they are reasons that homosexuality is natural, non-voluntary, persistent, and useful.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 1, 2009 12:55 PM
Bigoted Bill #17, HIV does not come prepackaged with homosexuality. Like other viruses, you have to catch it somehow. Catching a virus has nothing to do with morality (although knowingly giving it would). Looking solely at the cumulative statistics you provide through a fundie hetero-only, sexual-orientation-denying, abstinence-only lens of course makes male-male intercourse look like the biggest problem, except it really is your personal problem of holding prejudice against gays (and like djinn noted, your bigotry fails amazingly when confronted with gay women).
Yes PZ, please do. You seem to be aggravating the bigots to no end.Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
November 1, 2009 12:55 PM
My first point should have read "typical" rather than "normal".
Posted by: Pygmy Loris
|
November 1, 2009 12:57 PM
Bill,
You're being a bit dishonest in your "facts." You neglected to mention that the statistics you cite are for males only.
The statistics for California for April (source) are as follows
Men who have sex with men 23872 (66%)
Men who have sex with men and use drugs 2358 (7%)
Hemophilia/coagulation disorder 49 (0%)
Injection drug use 2760 (8%)
Heterosexual contact 3417 (9%)
Recipient of blood, components or other tissue 96 (0%)
Risk not reported/Other 3540 ( 10%)
Total (100%)
Now, why are the HIV transmission rates relevant to whether homosexuality is "normal?" Oh wait, they're not.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 1, 2009 12:59 PM
CSue, the statistics mentioned by Bigot Bill can be found here: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/data/statistics/Pages/OA2009MonthlyStatistics.aspx
Posted by: raven | November 1, 2009 1:16 PM
Gee bill, lying some more.
Most HIV positive people are outside the USA. Half of them are women. HIV/AIDS stopped being a gay disease about the time we started collecting statistics a few decades ago. The vast majority of cases, in fact, occur in heterosexuals.
In the USA, about 1/3 of new cases are in women and this is trending towards 1/2, like the rest of the world. Using bill's nonlogic, heterosexuality is abnormal and a good way to get yourself killed.
I don't think the fact that HIV/AIDS is mostly a heterosexual disease is a good reason to outlaw marriage or sex. Not that outlawing either would stop anyone.
Posted by: Peter Ashby
|
November 1, 2009 1:42 PM
Then there was the generational study that showed taken as a pedigree the lines with regular homosexual males in them were just as productive as others that did not. The female relatives had more babies and of course gay men have some children too. The hypothesis was that in these lineages the women are very strongly attracted to men and that this trait gets passed onto some of their sons. So it isn't that homosexuality in men is adaptive it is that the trait in the women is and the effect on the men (only some of them, remember) is not a big enough negative to stop it having that positive effect.
I can try and find the reference if anyone is interested.
Of course there seems to be more than one way to be gay, for eg the study that showed that the more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay, regardless of whether or not you are raised with them. Which fingers something about the intra uterine environment that carrying a succession of male babies triggers.
There does not have to be only one explanation, cause or susceptibility.
Posted by: Bill | November 1, 2009 1:51 PM
About the California HIV data: The facts I gave before are for cumulative cases up through 2009, not those reported for a given month. They are found on page 5, of the CDPH report:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov//programs/aids/Documents/HIVAIDSMergedMar09.pdf
Women with HIV are included in the Cal data, under the heading for Heterosexual contact, but they are a very small minority of cases, less than 1%. The facts show that about 84% of HIV cases are related to Homosexual men. Whenever these facts are stated, one argument by gay men runs.."in Africa, the major Form of HIV transmission is heterosexual". True. But, many people in Africa are desperately poor and not educated, so they find it difficult to make the connection with HIV and multiple sexual encounters. So, being a well educated American, you should understand this relationship. Name calling is not a cure, in the face of pandemics, or even a palliative.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 1, 2009 2:03 PM
Yawn, bill the bigot is still a bigot. No justification for bigotry.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
November 1, 2009 2:09 PM
I think the thing to remember about bill, and most anyone who babbles on about "normalizing homosexuality" as leading to social problems, is that there is some magical time called the 1950s when things were perfect. That state repression of LGBT people was rampant then, that suicide attempts among gay teens still remains disproportionate and harassment epidemic...these are features not bugs. Those magical days when women, queers and people of color "stayed in their places"--never mind that those places were maintained through repression and legal violence--are what are desired. AIDS deaths are rhetorical tools, and nothing more. Dead faggots, battered wives, and lynched blacks are recalled fondly.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | November 1, 2009 2:20 PM
To the homophobic bigot,
Citation needed please when presenting data. Otherwise we assume you're BSing.
And on the note of homosexual being normal, there has been and currently are still culture that view homosexuality as a normal occurance. Your cultural bias is the only thing that says it's not.
Posted by: raven | November 1, 2009 3:12 PM
Bill just repeats his lies. 90% of HIV cases are outside the USA. This source says 60% of them are women. The vast majority of HIV/AIDS cases are heterosexually transmitted. The lies about Africans being too stupid to know how it is spread is lame.
Hatred, bigotry, lies and a mind destroyed by toxic xian fundamentalism won't help either. We know you could care less about HIV or AIDS patients. This is just an excuse for you to vomit some hatred on a message board. It's OK, hate all you want. People know what xianity has been reduced to in the USA, It stands for hate, lies, and right wing extremism. It is destroying the religion here.
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
November 1, 2009 3:53 PM
Why are some people so afraid of homosexuality? Seriously, can anyone tell me? One would think that hate and bigotry would be considered more ugly then love and affection between two people, but apparently not.
Also, even humans were the only one with homosexual behaviour, it would still be natural. It exists in nature, doesn't it...?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 1, 2009 3:57 PM
Bill,
Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand your argument to be:
1. The majority of AIDS/HIV victims in California indulge in homosexual sex.
2. Kill the queers!
If this is a reasonable statement of your argument, you appear to be missing a few steps. However, I suspect that step 1 and any other presumptive steps are really unnecessary for you to reach your conclusion.
Posted by: Andyo
|
November 1, 2009 4:03 PM
There is no need of citations for Bill's data. Right or wrong, it has nothing to do with teh gay being "good" or "bad".
Rather, just ask him how in the world he believes it has anything to do with it.
I think he's in denial, he's clearly a closeted one trying to rationalize. Come on Bill, don't repress those dirty thoughts, move here to California!
And use condoms.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
November 1, 2009 4:12 PM
And use condoms.
ding ding ding!
I bet bill is pissed I've stayed HIV-negative...along with the majority of gay men.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | November 1, 2009 4:23 PM
He's probably more pissed that you used the ebil-anti-procreation condoms.
At any rate, he doesn't care that most gay are HIV-negative. Or that gays are one of biggist promoters of safe-sex and HIV testing. Or even that many HIV-AIDS victims are actually women and non-reproductive children. Where ever he got his stats is FAR more infalliable than facts.
I bet he's one of those delude fools at AIDS charity events with the signs saying "Stop AIDS? Stop Sin!" thinking only the gays are infecting folks with HIV and doing absolutly nothing to actually stoping AIDS.
Posted by: raven | November 1, 2009 4:28 PM
Since bill is so concerned about social problems, there is one orders of magnitude greater than HIV/AIDS. It consists of toxic Death Cults pretending to be xianity and they freely admit they want to destroy the USA as we know it.
As the expert on Final Solutions, what would you (bill) suggest to fix our toxic religion problem? Right now we are watching them destroy themselves and occasionally cheering. But really, it is going to take a few decades at this rate.
I've thought of mass prayer vigils and the sacrifice of half of the US oxen herd to hasten the Rapture so we can all wave bye bye to them. Unfortunately, failed 1st century predictions and primitive superstitions aren't going to be enough.
Posted by: Eidolon | November 1, 2009 6:44 PM
On a recent trip in Belize, I noted a billboard offering help for women in the situation of "No sex - no home" with an HIV positive spouse. About 1/3 of the country lives below the poverty line for the country and women in the 19-44 age group are the largest number of HIV positive individuals (60%).
this country has the highest rate of HIV in the region. According to the IRC, the virus is largly spread through heterosexual contact with sexual and gender based violence being a major factor.
So perhaps, Bill, in the larger scheme of things, homosexuality may not be the cause of all this HIV stuff after all. What IS a factor is safe sexual practices, something the gay community in the US is now much more aware of and practicing. Your framing it as as hetero/homo issue is simply wrong. Sin has nada to do with it.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 1, 2009 7:06 PM
Gyeong Hwa Pak @ 42;
"He's probably more pissed that you used the ebil-anti-procreation condoms."
But surely not even Bill could object to the use of condoms by homosexual men to prevent the spread of venerial disease? Creo-bots mostly object to condoms on the basis that pro-phallatics subvert the supposed purpose of sexuality by stopping conception, and since currently homosexual sex is unlikely to lead to pregnancy, why should they object to condoms being used by the homosexual community? Except for the fact that they like the idea of AIDS being a judgement against the 'unholy' from their psychotic god, of course.
Having said this, I recently read an article about geneticists sucessfully creating artificial human ova and spermatazoa from stem cells donated by members of either gender. The sperm are already viable, and the eggs soon will be. The article itself rapidly devolved into the usual scaremongering about procreation without the involvement of actual sex and it's boogeyman-espue social consequences, but the article did make me think.
While I am in no position to evaluate the scientific accuracy of the peice, if we take the dangerous step of assuming that it was broadly accurate, I wonder how it would affect the Xian world view? Since so many fundies justify their repugnant homophobia on the basis that sex should be about procreation, and homosexual sex can never result in new life, I wonder if they would reconsider their bigotry in light of a technology that would allow two men or two women to have children together that were fully biologically theirs and were brought about using good old fashioned (and, one assumes, god-sanctioned) meiotic division and (at the cellular level anyway) sexual reproduction rather than cloning? Would this suddenly make gay sex more acceptable to them, or would the idea of homosexuals being able to found a family in a fashion not entirely disimilar to the way some heterosexuals do scare them witless?
I am assuming the latter. Fundies are stupid enough to believe that 'teh Gheys are going to breed more of teh gheys and take over teh wurld!', and bigoted enough to fear the very idea of a little pro-creative parity accross sexual orientation lines. Xians really are a sad indictment on the state of contemporary humanity.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 1, 2009 7:23 PM
Yes, please. I've been mentioning that paper for years but have never been able to cite it because I've only read a report about it.
At least some of them believe that, like them, everyone (at least if male) is homosexual. (There are several comments to this effect from prominent American fundies.) Obviously, if that were true, and if people didn't force themselves to have heterosexual sex (by fear of hell or whatever), we really would die out next generation – and that's what they fear.
Alan Keyes is an example. He called gay men evil hedonists who don't care about the future of mankind or something to that effect. Well, if you're straight, you simply won't have gay sex if you commit yourself to unfettered hedonism. But he isn't straight, and it plainly hasn't occurred to him that anyone might be. (Or at least that any man might be. Being a fundie, he probably doesn't even know that most women aren't asexual.)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 1, 2009 7:35 PM
Also, if they had to admit that sexual orientation is something you're born with, they'd have to admit that they are gay and will stay gay. Because of their religious prejudices, that scares them shitless.
Fred "Westboro Baptist" Phelps seems to be one of those. He refuses to answer the question if he's hever had gay sex, and he gets all worked up when the question is asked...
Is that a deliberate pun on "prophylactics", or an eggcorn?
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 1, 2009 7:40 PM
Citizen of the Cosmos @ 38;
"Why are some people so afraid of homosexuality? Seriously, can anyone tell me?"
I too have never been able to fathom why fundie homophobes are such hate-filled excuses for humans. It could be ignorance. It could be truly staggering stupidity. But it is probably fear. As David Marjanović, OM points out above @ 46 repressed homosexual tendencies of their own probably play a major role. The idea that there might exist dissolute, hedonist men who would by preference have wanton and oft repeated sex with women is alien to them. The idea that women have sexual agency of their own would probably make their heads explode.
To such people, women are no more than wombs on legs and sexual urges exist to be repudiated and repressed. Unless you are a catholic priest and the urges in question are directed at children. The rules conveniently change in such circumstances.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 1, 2009 7:42 PM
" pro-phallatics
Is that a deliberate pun on "prophylactics", or an eggcorn?"
I was trying to be funny. I promise I will stop now.
Posted by: ERV
|
November 1, 2009 7:48 PM
Epidemiology FAIL.
HIV-1 was initially a 'gay' disease due to founder effects.
Thus, since the invention of antiretrovirals, most of the people living with HIV-1 are homosexual.
The statistic youre looking for, Bill, is new infection rates, which has been steadily decreasing in MSM, increasing in Hetero.
**THE MORE YOU KNOOOOOOOOOOW!!!!**
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 1, 2009 7:49 PM
In that case, it was funny. :-)
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 1, 2009 7:59 PM
The occurrence of homosexuality in a species that relies on opposite gender sex for procreation isn’t a great mystery and I don’t think we even need to argue about the "gay gene".
Would Darwin find homosexuality "normal" and conclude that there must be a gene?
The pieces of the anatomical jigsaw puzzle and how they have been created (err...excuse me - evolved) seem to answer this how and why question fairly conclusively.
Homosexuality is no different than any other sexual behavior which, no matter how pleasurable, is unlikely to result in procreation. I think it is primarily (but not exclusively) a choice made in response environmental conditioning and alternatives. The list of contributing "causes" could go on forever. Failed gender conditioning, childhood trauma, inquiring mindedness, self-perceived inability to compete in the fairly aggressive "sex selection" competition, self-empowerment through rebelliousness against the “norms of society”, boredom, deprivation of alternatives (jail), simple ignorance of biology (not doing what you think you are), religious or lack of religious considerations, ETC.
Lots of things happen in “natural selection” which don’t affect long term genetic outcomes and homosexual behavior just so happens to be one such phenomena. Its just physical pleasure and to the extent that homosexuality is a preference, it is regarded as abhorrent by those who accept God as a Law giver. No monotheist, however, could sustain an argument that a person “born that way” was committing a sin because, unlike road regulations, ignorance of the law IS a defense just as “inability” to keep the law. (The use of the word “ignorance” is intentionally chosen as distinguished from “rejection” of the law.) You must deliberate and choose.
Sin is a choice and the bible itself DOES acknowledge that some people are made that way in the womb. (People with ambiguous gender euphemistically called eunuchs.)
As long as we define male and female as sexual opposites a homosexual cannot call define themselves as being fully “in” one group or the other. But they can argue the case for their sexual preferences to be accepted as “normal” if they want. It would be surprising if was NO “gay rights” campaigners. They can even take it up with God.
If I was a (practicing) homosexual - I would.
One has either to say …”I reject the notion of God’s law and sin” or “God I don’t understand why You find my homosexual behavior abominable?”
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 1, 2009 8:02 PM
Lyin' Lion, your god doesn't exist, so your consistent attempts to declaim otherwise shows your delusional character. That means nothing else you say is considered the truth without hard physical evidence to show what you claim. And you never present that evidence. So, you are just a Lyin' Lion.
Posted by: John Morales | November 1, 2009 8:05 PM
Loris @29 (who actually linked to the source!):
Men who have sex with men 23872 (66%)
Men who have sex with men and use drugs 2358 (7%)
[...]
Aha! Clearly, as a man, if I'm gonna have sex with a man, I should also use drugs, thus reducing my chance of being infected nine-fold!
;)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 1, 2009 8:07 PM
Yeah, I want to become a member of a hated, discriminated against minority. That would be way cool.
Lyin' Irk, you've obviously never talked to a gay or lesbian. A fair number wish they were straight, because it would make life a whole lot easier for them.
Posted by: Mr T | November 1, 2009 8:09 PM
Wow, Lion (IRC), that sure is one big pile of stupid 'n evil you've got there. Congratulations, I don't think I can find a single true or moral statement in the whole thing.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 1, 2009 8:11 PM
Wait, now I'm curious: WHich Biblical uses of the term "eunuchs" are euphemistic, and which refer to, you know, eunuchs?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 1, 2009 8:11 PM
Lyin' Irk is a homophobic bigot. Is anyone surprised?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
November 1, 2009 8:15 PM
Hold it. The babbling bigot thinks "eunuchs" refers to intersex folks? It is kinda fun to watch idiots babble.
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | November 1, 2009 8:22 PM
Speaking of eunuchs, here's an interesting tidbit:
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 1, 2009 8:22 PM
In one of Terry Pratchett's books there's a naive teenage boy who wants to become a eunuch because they work in harems.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 1, 2009 8:28 PM
The ever reliable wikipedia gives Tertullian's dates as ca. 160 – ca. 220 and gives a reference for these dates. So this is reasonable evidence that Matthew's writer was not a contemporary of Jesus or even close.
Posted by: Piltdown Man
|
November 1, 2009 8:33 PM
Animals perform homosexual acts, therefore homosexuality is OK?
What you're basically saying is that liberal cultural mores reflect the animal kingdom. I won't argue with that.
MAJeff @ 46:
Speaking of child rapists and worthless scum ...
James Rennie was an outspoken critic of Section 28, which sought to protect schoolchildren from the promotion of homosexuality. What a surprise.
As a parent I feel somewhat bigoted about this.
Thank God for the occasional little victory:
Say what you like about the Mohams, they get things done.
Posted by: CSue | November 1, 2009 8:36 PM
Thanks to aratina cage @ #30 - I did follow the links, read the stats, and now have a question for Bigot Bill and his irksome follower-on, Tame Lion:
So, how did all those BABIES become HIV+? Are you telling me they're all lil' homo hedonists who have been gettin' it on in the nursery?
Dang, better start a program to hand out condoms to fetuses, in that case.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 1, 2009 8:38 PM
Yawn, Pilty, you are still as inane and irrelevant as ever. You will begin to achieve wisdom when you realize you are wasting your time here, and just adding to our amusement at godbots, your morally bankrupt church, and your insane musings.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 1, 2009 8:42 PM
You're a piece of work, Pilty.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 1, 2009 8:46 PM
Pilty is trying to divert attention from the fact that his church protects and supports pedophiles as a matter of official policy. Nice, moral organization you belong to, Pilty.
Posted by: John Morales | November 1, 2009 8:51 PM
Piltdown:
Are you purposely obtuse?
The 'therefore' is that homosexuality is evidently not unnatural.
--
PS You might as well have written, equally faux-sarcastically, "Animals perform heterosexual acts, therefore heterosexuality is OK?".
Careful with that petard.
Posted by: Andyo
|
November 1, 2009 9:03 PM
I wonder if these guys are serious. Do they really think they're making any kind of reasonable arguments?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 1, 2009 9:09 PM
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 1, 2009 9:11 PM
Here’s where logic and reason gets jettisoned
Some gay people wish they were straight
- THEREFORE –
Lion IRC has “obviously never spoken to” a single gay person.
I think God does not exist
– THEREFORE –
The assertion by Lion IRC that “the occurrence of homosexuality …… isn’t a great mystery” must be rejected as false.
I can’t find a true or moral statement in a 400 word post by Lion IRC
– THERFORE –
It must not be there and nobody else will find it either (because I’m so smart)
Lion IRC says “they can argue the case for their sexual preferences to be accepted as “normal” if they want”.
– THEREFORE –
He must be a homophobic bigot
The bible says some are made eunuchs in the womb and some who have been made eunuchs by others and some are voluntary eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven
- THERFORE –
The word eunuch in the bible cannot possibly have any other meaning other than the literal one in MAJeff’ mind.
Lion (IRC)
PS - Is it just me or do I detect some real (talk to the hand) personal anger towards anyone of faith no matter what they say?
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 1, 2009 9:15 PM
Animals perform homosexual acts, therefore homosexuality is OK?
What you're basically saying is that liberal cultural mores reflect the animal kingdom. I won't argue with that.
Seeing the humans are a part of the animal kingdom, you are conceding that liberal culture more accurately reflects nature. Thank you for playing.
Damn but I did not think that the hoax would concede so quickly. Perhaps he is finally learning.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 1, 2009 9:16 PM
Piltdown wrote:
Children that your god, if he exists, still failed to protect. Nice deity you've got there, Pilty. It's not just the fact that it's your brothers-in-faith who do the most raping, and your other brothers-in-faith who protect them that makes the church look bad; it's the fact that your supposedly all-powerful and loving god allows such behaviour to occur at all when it's well in his power to prevent it.
As it's been suggested to you before, Pilty - if you truly feel child-rape is wrong, you'd quit the Catholic church because they allowed it to happen. That you don't means you must be okay with it - and, therefore, calling out someone else for doing it is more than a little disingenuous.
Piltdown wrote:
Sounds like envy to me, Pilty. Isn't that a deadly sin for you? Besides, you tossed aside rationality once to convert to Catholicism; what's stopping you from doing so again and taking up Islam? You already possess the credulity to believe the lies and the intellectual dishonesty to defend those lies as truth. Then there's obligatory anti-human sentiment, which you appear to have in spades.
John Morales wrote (of Piltdown):
Heck, thanks the the power of the petard, Pilty's logged more flight hours than the average commercial pilot.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 1, 2009 9:18 PM
No, it goes like this:
Lyin' Erk: Queers are queer because they hate god and they want to be queer.
'Tis Himself: You've obviously never met any gays or lesbians. Many of them don't want to be homosexuals.
Lyin' Irk: Queers are queer because they hate society as well as god.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 1, 2009 9:22 PM
Here’s where logic and reason gets jettisoned
: every time this clown says anything.Posted by: John Morales | November 1, 2009 9:22 PM
LIRC:
Ayup! :) Good examples of it.
It's not just you that considers dissent, disgust and disparagement to be the result of anger.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 1, 2009 9:24 PM
All people of faith who try to convince us that their imaginary deity exists without providing physical evidence for that deity are treated with disrespect and scorn. You are nothing but a liar and bullshitter, since you haven't shown your presupposition is correct with evidence. Your faith is utterly and totally irrelevant to the facts. You should know that, if you are at least minimally intelligent about the scientific process.Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 1, 2009 9:24 PM
Anything said by Lyin' Jerk is naturally devoid of logic and reason. Nice Freudian slip.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 1, 2009 9:24 PM
Lyin' Irk,
It's just you. There are Christians who post here regularly who are respected and treated politely. The first Order of Molly recipient was Scott Hatfield, a Christian.
You and Pilty are sneered at because you're both homophobic bigots, proselytizers, and all-around dumbfucks.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 1, 2009 9:32 PM
Why does God hate yetis?
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 1, 2009 9:35 PM
Hoax, you do realize that if that ring of sick fucks were priests in your church, the bishops and archbishops would have moved them and tried to cover up that anything happened.
Say what you will about the caths, they get things done.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 1, 2009 9:55 PM
BTW, congrats Pilty on making FSTDT!
http://fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=66918
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 1, 2009 10:02 PM
Feynmaniac, there must be a mistake. The Hoax is not a fundy because fundies are not True Christians. They are not members of the True Church.
Posted by: CSue | November 1, 2009 10:04 PM
aratina cage @ #80:
Who WOULDN'T hate yetis? Don't they smell just AWFUL??
j/k
Great FSTDT link, btw. Is there a fundy bingo card someplace? There must be a "Play the equate-to-Satanism card" square on it someplace. And if not, there should be.
Posted by: John Morales | November 1, 2009 10:09 PM
Feynmaniac @82, whoo-hoo! I for one feel vicarious pride in another of Pharyngula's chew-toys gaining well-deserved recognition.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 1, 2009 10:15 PM
@CSue
That would actually be fun to play on a thread like this where we get a few kooks. :)Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 1, 2009 10:21 PM
Oh yeah, I saw a great protest sign today that read "Jesus had 2 Daddies". That needs to be turned into a book and delivered to every Christian Sunday School.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | November 1, 2009 10:33 PM
But I thought that Jesus was his own daddy? So I guess if teaching gay relationships in school is bad, we should teach children incest instead. Right? lol
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 1, 2009 11:54 PM
Hi John Morales,
Some folk here really do seem intent on following "the 2 rules of atheism".
Rule 1. There is no God.
Rule 2. If there is a God I hate him.
So far I am enjoying this blog and many of the posts because I have (believe it or not) a genuine interest in why people assert atheist beliefs.
That’s right. ASSERT BELIEFS.
Atheism is not THE one and only default position. (I don’t even think it makes it onto the list of mediocre positions but that’s another discussion altogether) Atheism is just one of MANY world views. Even the word itself is structurally related to the very idea it is attempting to negate and as such becomes an opposite position which requires proponents – rather than the lazy, lucky couch potato idea that wants to sit back and relax and let every other idea do the “hard yards”. There is no law of the universe by which only theists MUST bear the burden of proof. In fact it is a logical fallacy to assert that atheism is less of a proposition than theism. A yin/yang diagram is surely enough of an explanation that between two opposites neither side is compelled to prove their case. We all know religious people who “believe without seeing” but there are a few atheists here who also do much the same.
Lion (IRC)
PS- I have a thick skin and I certainly don’t expect everyone here to say…”Welcome. so you’re interested in why I am an atheist, let’s discuss it in a clam and friendly way”. But if I was an atheist wanting a theist to see things from my point of view I would leave out the pejorative comments and expletives and try to show some good faith. Saying to someone, “oh well I have no idea who you are but you’re a scumbag Christian and therefore a moron and a waste of my time” seems to send the wrong signal about how an enlightened mind works.
Posted by: mythusmage
|
November 2, 2009 12:01 AM
Gyeong Hwa Pak, #88
Keep in mind that Mary was herself the product of a virgin birth. Meaning that she was thereby pure enough to bear the Son of God. Which means the Jesus was the second generation product of parthogenesis, and so likely the result of errant genes himself. Genes, that is, which cased what would ordinarily be a female to develop as male. So Jesus of Nazareth may well have been an intersexed female manifesting as male.
Now if I were of conspiratorial mind, I would come up with a secret plot by a cabal of ladies worshiping The Mother from ancient times concocting a scheme whereby a line of parthogenetic women would produce an intersexed messiah who would produce a feminizing religion to de-masculinate men. Thus returned humanity to the pooftah paradise that was the Garden of Eden.
Posted by: Christina | November 2, 2009 12:15 AM
Hold it. The babbling bigot thinks "eunuchs" refers to intersex folks? It is kinda fun to watch idiots babble.
Actually, I hate to defend that idiot, but "eunuchs from their mother's womb" did actually include some intersexed people. It probably referred to what the Romans called "eunuchs by nature", who were male-assigned individuals who had non-functional genitalia. For example, having ambiguous genitalia, or conditions that prevented puberty (which are, today, treated with artificial hormones)
Posted by: Mr T | November 2, 2009 12:22 AM
Lion (IRC):
But, then again, that isn't true, if you're specifically talking about the burden of proof required of propositions for the existence of supernatural beings, which of course you are in the very next sentence.Yes, it's true, I do assert beliefs. For example, I believe you don't understand the problems with your own belief system. There is certainly sufficient evidence, but I could not say it is an absolute certainty, since among other alternatives you could be lying. However, I do not have beliefs proposing the existence of supernatural beings, for which there is no evidence of any kind.
This is true:
Also, did I seriously just read an argumentum ad yin/yang diagram? From a Christian, no less?
By the way, if you want to encourage a calm and reasonable discussion, then please listen more, or at least cut down on the patently absurd statements.
Posted by: Mr T | November 2, 2009 12:29 AM
mythusmage, #90:
I'm not aware of any Christian denomination that believes this. However, many do believe Mary was a product of "immaculate conception", meaning born without sin, not born of a virgin.Posted by: Steve_C | November 2, 2009 12:30 AM
Lion. Why do you insist this is more complicated than it actually is? Most theists claim there is a god and more importantly that they know what this god wants.
They ALL do it without a shred of evidence. Jump through all the sophist hoops you want, doesn't change the fact your thinking doesn't justify belief in any gods.
Atheists claim there is no there there because no one has produced any convincing evidence. What are we asserting as atheists? I do not believe in god or I believe there are no gods.
Myths are interesting, every culture has them, doesn't mean they're true.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 2, 2009 12:31 AM
Re: Gregory Greenwood,
Funny stuff that Christianinanity. Was baby Jesus part of the Trinity all along, or did he merge into it at a certain age? If he always was part of the Trinity, there was a point where it was God, the Holy Spirit, and Baby Jesus.Here's another take on it: Jesus was one long episode of divine masturbation. God diddled himself to save you!
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 2, 2009 12:33 AM
Whoops, I meant to respond to Gyeong Hwa Pak in my previous comment.
Posted by: Mr T | November 2, 2009 12:43 AM
aratina cage:
"It is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us." -Peter De Vries, The Mackerel Plaza, via Dan DennettPosted by: llewelly | November 2, 2009 1:14 AM
Lion IRC | November 1, 2009 11:54 PM:
If an adherent to the Jedi religion insists that Yoda is real, and therefor, politics and social customs must show special deference to their beliefs, I am sure you will nod politely and support their claims without asking them to provide evidence for their claims. I'm sure you'll do the same for the Wiccans, the Pastafarians, the Danikenites, the Zoroastrians, the Scientologists, the People's Temple, the Church of the Subgenius, and any other group with weird claims.
Please read up on Occam's razor, and Sagan's statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
In any case - there are many sorts of God for which there is plenty of evidence against. Please read Victor Stenger's book God: The Failed Hypothesis for some examples.
Posted by: John Morales | November 2, 2009 1:18 AM
LIRC:
You're using quotes. Citation needed for the source.
Um, you realise 1 and 2 are contradictory, right? Of course you do, otherwise it'd be a less satisfactory strawman.
There are no rules for atheism; it's merely a state of non-belief in the concrete reality of theists' god-constructs.
You've just asserted a belief. :)
It's not a worldview, it's a lack of belief in deities. Do you really think non-belief in any given proposition is itself a worldview?
It's a word that denotes lack of theism — not any different from, say, non-smoker.
It merely denotes we're not members of the set of theists — who do put forward a positive truth-claim.
Because you think not accepting belief in a (silly) proposition is a positive claim, you keep making this mistake.
The burden of proof is with whoever makes a claim, not with the person rejecting the claim.
What? Here: yin yang.
I guess so: I myself believe that I don't believe in gods that are nowhere to be seen, and are given nonsensical or contradictory attributes by their proponents.
It's called skepticism — the need to have a justifiable basis for belief in propositions.
And if I were like you, I'd likely feel insulted that you infer I'm using pejorative comments!
Perhaps if you paid a little more attention to the message, and a little less to the tone, you might acquire some understanding of our position.
So either ignore those who do so, or just keep away from atheist blogs. Not all of us feel pity for you guys.
Posted by: llewelly | November 2, 2009 1:28 AM
Lion IRC, as a theist, you have egregiously misrepresented the views of others here, you have made many derogatory remarks, you have displayed bigotry towards several groups (such as gays, women, and atheists), and committed many other offenses. But now you claim:
Taken literally, it would imply that you believe you would be a better person if you were an atheist.
Posted by: wiley | November 2, 2009 1:57 AM
"Not all of us feel pity for you guys."
You could have knocked me down with a feather. A 350 lb. feather, but nevertheless a feather.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 2, 2009 2:31 AM
But if I was an atheist wanting a theist to see things from my point of view I would leave out the pejorative comments and expletives and try to show some good faith.
Until you fucking admit you went over the line and that you apologize to me for calling me a Nazi, no thinking person can ever consider that you are being truthful here.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 2, 2009 2:35 AM
Yep, like bald is a hair color or not-stamp-collecting is a hobby.
The lion is just not very bright.
Posted by: Sarcosapien | November 2, 2009 3:10 AM
Considering this high school's colloquial name is "Cornfield High", this really doesn't surprise me.
Posted by: TJ | November 2, 2009 3:18 AM
"Given the pervasive presence of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom, same-sex partnering must be an adaptive trait that’s been carefully preserved by natural selection."
I do lack expertise in the field of biology, so I must ask directly for those who understand PZ's obection if they would be willing to share with me why he is objecting in the first place to above quote from Johan's article.
Thanks.
Posted by: SEF | November 2, 2009 3:36 AM
@ Mr T #93:
Which, of course, then conflicts with their simultaneous claim of humility for god - ie in him having humbled himself to be born from a normal stinky woman. Instead they have to invent it having magically been an especially "clean" woman.
These theists just can't keep their stories straight. A natural consequence of them lying all the time.
Posted by: John Morales | November 2, 2009 3:49 AM
TJ, I too lack expertise in biology, but PZ makes it clear what it is that he objects to (my bold).
(The belief that all creatures are superbly adapted to their environment.)
Posted by: SEF | November 2, 2009 4:02 AM
@ TJ #105:
PZ has been consistent in this. (NB That previous, more detailed, post might help you a bit.)
My guess is that PZ dislikes the simplistic assumption (untested on a case by case basis) that homosexuality is always present because it's an advantageous adaptation in itself (and the additional embedded assumption, that it arose once and was kept, probably doesn't help either!); when there are actually a whole bunch of other mechanisms for the presence of homosexuality (not necessarily all mutually exclusive in their applicability).
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | November 2, 2009 4:02 AM
Rule 1. There is no God.
Rule 2. If there is a God I hate him.
But if I was an atheist wanting a theist to see things from my point of view I would leave out the pejorative comments and expletives and try to show some good faith.
Perhaps we would have, if you hadn't been such as asshole from day one:
1. I'm don't want evolution to be true, therefore it's false.
2. I have a 6,000 year-old collection of Bronze Age myths that trumps 150 years of empirical evidence.
3. Atheists know that God exits, they just don't want to be held accountable.
4. You're all going to hell.
Of course, you'll now pull the "Who, me?" card?
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | November 2, 2009 4:07 AM
Re: Pilty on FSTDT, I think these two comments speak volumes:
This crazy person seems to think that he or she is smarter than he or she actually is.
I suspect this is a poe.
In other words, Pilty, people have trouble believing that anyone could be that stupid.
Pilty: As a parent...
That's the saddest statement yet.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 2, 2009 4:20 AM
you come to this blog, introduce yourself with extremely arrogant, condescending, and yet completely ignorant assertions, and you expect "good faith" from those you have talked to in such a way?you're quite a piece of work.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 2, 2009 4:47 AM
-But if I was an atheist wanting a theist to see things from my point of view I would leave out the pejorative comments and expletives and try to show some good faith.-
We have seen people like you come and go repeatedly. You are not new, unique or particularly clever/witty. You are as bigoted as the others we have met. There is a christian fundy cookie cutter out there and you are just the latest export to arrive here. We are tired of listening to the same dull comments, the same bible verses, the same poor and irrelevent statistics. Insulting you is quicker and has the same effect as careful explanation and evidence.
Don't take it personally, we are just being efficient.
Posted by: Andyo
|
November 2, 2009 5:55 AM
I think I know what's the problem with these guys.
They don't know the meaning of the word "therefore", therefore their logic fails miserably.
Go ahead, do a quick find on your browser for "therefore" in this thread, and not one time is it used correctly by these guys.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 2, 2009 6:58 AM
Piltdown Man @ 63;
"Animals perform homosexual acts, therefore homosexuality is OK?
What you're basically saying is that liberal cultural mores reflect the animal kingdom. I won't argue with that."
I think that the point being made here is that homosexuality exists in species other than humanity, thus challenging the idea that homosexual behaviour is somehow a 'corrupt' or 'sinful' construct of humans, or is 'abnormal' in any naturalistic sense.
'Liberal cultural mores' most certainly do not closely reflect the most well known elements of the animal kingdom. We are not in favour of any cultural system that is heavy into the whole 'red in tooth and claw' thing. I cannot speak for all Liberals, but for myself I rather like to think that humanity's possession of sentience places a humanist moral burden upon us to live by certain ethical standards such as the strong protecting the weak, the wealthy aiding the poor and the fortunate concerning themselves with those plagued by misfortune without out any tribalistic in group/out group motivation required.
"James Rennie was an outspoken critic of Section 28, which sought to protect schoolchildren from the promotion of homosexuality. What a surprise."
James Rennie has been convicted of horrific and repugnant acts of child abuse. He is deserving of no pity. The fact that he is a gay rights campaigner does not seem entirely relevant to this issue. Just beacuse one gay rights campaigner has been discovered to be a paedophile does not mean that all homosexuals are somehow a threat to children or that the patently homophobic Section 28 was justified. This makes no more sense than saying that the fact that there are a number of child abusing catholic priests proves that all catholics are closet paedophiles. The existence of evidence indicating that the upper echelons of the Catholic church did seek to cover up the child abuse to protect the church's image is a seperate issue (but one that implies a far greater threat to children from catholicism than from the homosexual community. The church was prepared to facilitate further child abuse to protect it's own interests. There is no evidence that homosexuals as a social group have ever given any succour to child abusers for any reason. Most homosexuals are aghast at the horrors Rennie has perpetrated).
"As a parent I feel somewhat bigoted about this.
Thank God for the occasional little victory . . .
Say what you like about the Mohams, they get things done."
I think that anyone reading this article should be leery of celebrating a triumph of intolerence and homophobia. These same parents are likely to be uncomfortable with a number of other practices of western education. There may even be an extreme rump among them who object to the education of girls. It is a ludicrously unlikely example Piltdown but, for the sake of argument, how would you feel if they succeeded in campaigning to remove education from female students? Or if they managed to ban comparative religious studies? Leaving aside the inherent intolerence of their position, this could very easily become a problematic precedent.
Lion IRC @ 89;
"Some folk here really do seem intent on following "the 2 rules of atheism".
Rule 1. There is no God.
Rule 2. If there is a God I hate him."
There really are no 'rules' of atheism. There are no dogmas or articles of faith. All atheism amounts to is a statement of non-belief in god or gods. While atheism and skepticism are not interchangeable terms, most people here are both atheists and skeptics. We do not believe in any manifestation of the supernatural, whether notionally 'divine' or otherwise, in the absence of proof. Beyond this, however, we are a very heterogenous grouping. One other thing that we do share in common is that we do not 'hate god'. You cannot hate that which you do not believe exists. We are opposed to the sociological and physical harm that we believe the god concept has caused (and continues to cause) to human society down the centuries. This is not motivated by hatred of something that we consider to be a pernicious social construct, but by concern for our fellow human beings.
"There is no law of the universe by which only theists MUST bear the burden of proof."
Here I must respectfully disagree. It is the theists who are making an extrordinary claim about the existence of an all powerful deity in the absence of any proof whatsoever. If you wish to convince atheists that you are right, you must provide proof. Proving a negative is next to impossible in the best of circumstances. As atheists, we talk of the paucity of proof for god, not the strength of proof against god. There are parsimonious explanations for the universe that do not require a god. The god of the gaps has fewer gaps, of ever shrinking size, to squeeze into. If you are going to make a claim that flies in the face of a reasoned, scientific understanding of reality then you have to provide the proof for your assertion. As Llewelly stated above, Carl Sagen's point about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence comes into play here.
"if I was an atheist wanting a theist to see things from my point of view I would leave out the pejorative comments and expletives and try to show some good faith. Saying to someone, “oh well I have no idea who you are but you’re a scumbag Christian and therefore a moron and a waste of my time” seems to send the wrong signal about how an enlightened mind works."
I am sorry to hear that you feel that the posters here are being unnecessarily offensive toward you, but I doubt that their use of language was motivated by personal emnity toward you. Issues relating to homophobia are very emotive topics. Some of the contributors here are homosexuals. Others, like myself, find homophobic attitudes to be offensive because they are an insult to the common dignity of humanity and speak to a mindset that judges the moral worth of a person based upon their sexual orientation, an aspect of a person that is both beyond their control and that has no relation to the moral character of that individual.
Also, if you describe respected contributors in prejorative terms, like calling Janine a nazi, then it is likely that some of the Pharyngulites will respond in kind. I have been reading and enjoying Janine's posts for some time now. She is by turns erudite and funny. I have never heard her express any position that could even remotely be described as fascist. It is my humble opinion that such an insult is far more grave than any use of expletives in the heat of the moment.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 2, 2009 7:19 AM
Lyin' Lion ignorantly bleats
You show a real inability to grasp logic. If dog doesn't exist, why and how would your Rule 2 come into play? Why waste hate on something that doesn't exist. It is just you sloppy thinking theists think people either love or hate your deity. We are indifferent to your concept of your deity, and if you would quit trying to push your delusions upon us, we are more than willing to leave you alone with your delusions.Posted by: echidna
|
November 2, 2009 7:20 AM
LIRC:
Those two rules you posted are contradictory, and ungrammatical to boot. A hypothetical should be phrased : If there were a god...
Did some under=-educated Christian propose these as a straw-atheist position?
I suggest these rules are more in line with atheist thought :
Rule 1. There is no evidence for any supernatural beings.
Rule 2. If there were supernatural beings, I would not choose to believe in them without evidence.
This reasoning means that belief in gods, leprechauns, fairies, invisible pink unicorns, ghosts, goblins, angels and demons is not justified on the evidence available.
If you were to show us evidence, we would believe. It's that simple. By the way, the bible is evidence of literacy, not evidence of any god. Just like the Illiad is not evidence for Greek gods.
Posted by: OurSally | November 2, 2009 7:56 AM
If you people will insist on feeding your trolls then they will keep on coming back for more.
It is hard to read this blog for all the trollishness. Please stop feeding them, then we can just read the useful contributions. If I want fundiness there are plenty of sites where there is nothing else.
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 2, 2009 8:09 AM
But I thought that Jesus was his own daddy? aratina
Indeed; and as I've pointed out before, but cannot forbear repeating, that makes "Jesus motherfucking Christ" a theologically unimpeachable phrase.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 2, 2009 8:13 AM
And let them get away with calling homosexuality abominable or any other horrid comment?Posted by: Knockgoats | November 2, 2009 8:13 AM
Atheism is not THE one and only default position. (I don’t even think it makes it onto the list of mediocre positions but
that’s another discussion altogetherI have absolutely no argument for this so I'll just assert it and dishonesty pretend I do) - Lyin' JerkFixed for yer. No charge.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 2, 2009 8:22 AM
That Jesus was his own daddy was noted by Gyeong Hwa Pak #88 (just to clear that up seeing as how I started the misattributeion mess for Gyeong Hwa Pak). But I can't argue with that phrase! Even worse, Jesus, as God, created his mother, so he was fucking his daughter, too. It all makes sense because God works in mysterious ways.Posted by: Anri
|
November 2, 2009 8:29 AM
Lion sez:
Well, I myself, don't accept either of those 'rules', but let's play your game for a bit - see where it goes.
You have suggested that "There is a god/there is not god" and "God should be despised/god should be adored" are points worht aruing over (I'm paraphrasing here, so if you feel I've misrepresended what you're saying, correct me).
So, let's see your side of it, then.
Give us your evidence for god. Give us the reasons that god should be adored. You want to discuss these points, let's do just that.
...
You do get, though, that when someone has said that they are a christian, we right then and there have some idea who they are - by their own admission. Again, speaking for myself, I have not called anyone here a moron based on their religious beliefs, if they were capable of supporting them intelligently, even if I disagreed with them.
So, be noble, Lion, be mighty. Rise above the sea of invective you see here and engage only with the intelligent, the erudite, the polite.
So long as you do not then complain if we wish to do the selfsame thing.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 2, 2009 8:32 AM
"as I've pointed out before, but cannot forbear repeating, that makes "Jesus motherf***ing Christ" a theologically unimpeachable phrase."
"Even worse, Jesus, as God, created his mother, so he was f***ing his daughter, too. It all makes sense because God works in mysterious ways. "
Since there is no passage in the bible that explicitly states Mary's consent to being turned into the delivery system for the Messiah, shouldn't that be 'raping his daughter while, oddly, simultaneously raping his mother'? And we though Oedipus and Electra had problems.
It is probably just as well that god does not exist. If he did, we would really need to lock him up in a secure facility for sexually violent criminals. At least he would have the company of a few priests to pass the time.
Posted by: Ewan R | November 2, 2009 8:53 AM
Now come on guys.... everyone knows Yahweh traditionally lives outside of his own rule system and therefore being a rapist (of both his child and mother) is not necessarily a bad thing. This is the same guy who comitted genocide on a level that makes the Nazis look like the United Way because despite being omnipotent people wouldn't do what he said - it is pretty much a step up to become a rapist from such ignoble beginnings - 2000 years later he's reformed all the way to a simple toast graffiti artist - give the dude a few more millenia and he'll probably be helping old ladies across the street.
Posted by: Peter Ashby
|
November 2, 2009 10:14 AM
@David Marjanovic
Sorry for not getting back to you before now.
I'm pretty sure this is the paper. My bookmark now defaults to some access control company instead of the journal.
If you search on PubMed for 'homosexuality AND Female AND Fecundity' it and several others addressing the issue subsequently are on the first page of results.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 2, 2009 10:26 AM
It's very simple. We'll feed them till they explode.
Who cares? Darwin didn't even know genes exist in the first place.
The question to ask is whether homosexuality fits into the theory of evolution by mutation, selection, and drift, to which Darwin has made important contributions, but by no means the last ones. Science is simply not about people.
I think it does fit – see comment 32.
Joan Roughgarden also thinks it fits – though in a quite different way.
To me, it looks like she doesn't know about the data mentioned in comment 32…
Great. Now put some evidence on the table that any of the causes you list can in fact contribute to homosexuality.
Dude, if you're capable of finding gay sex fun, you are already gay or bi.
Should we? Does such a definition make sense?
Do you eat pork?
Not every Christian is a homophobe. At least not where I come from.
There is no such thing. If you're capable of being seduced by someone of your own sex, you're already gay or bi.
Hey, why am I still not in love with Cuttlefish? Because I'm not capable of it. Because I'm straight.
(And just for the record, I played with dolls when I was little, and liked it. No, "dolls" is not a euphemism for GI Joe figures.)
Doctrine of the Preexistence of Jesus. Look it up. And facepalm at the results of trying to apply logic to religion.
Posted by: AJS
|
November 2, 2009 10:30 AM
There's an obvious (to me, anyway) evolutionary explanation for homosexual behaviour: Instinctual programming is the same in both sexes, so each sex knows how to "do it" from the other sex's point of view. (This is certainly the case in dogs. Being humped by a pit-bull bitch in heat is not something you forget quickly.) Sexual diamorphism is a recent phenomenon; the first sexually-reproducing species were hermaphrodites, with occasional males and females arising as mutations, so it would make sense to do this.
And not every member of a colony has to contribute directly to the gene pool. Provided individuals with homosexual tendencies have some other survival skill, they will find a useful rôle within the colony.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 2, 2009 10:31 AM
Thanks, I might even have access to that one.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 2, 2009 10:36 AM
…like what, 600 million years? And that's just for animals. Yeast (and other fungi) also have two distinct sexes.
Slime molds have up to 23 distinct sexes, BTW… each sex can reproduce with each other.
Posted by: bcoppola
|
November 2, 2009 10:37 AM
LIRC:
FWIW in trying to penetrate your skull: The two "rules" underpinning my atheism are:
1) As evidence for one is so far lacking, there is probably no God.
2) If there is a God, or something like a God, It is most likely far beyond the ken of humans, and thus unlikely to be anything like the various Gods of human religions.
Other atheists probably have a different take. Deep rifts, you know.
BTW, hope some of us are signing up on Mr. DeLong's Facebook support page. Being married to a now-retired teacher myself, I have too often seen how spineless school boards and admins think that "serving the taxpayers" means caving to pressure from the loudest and often most narrow minded, rather than serving the taxpayers by supporting and encouraging the best teachers and thereby improving the quality of education they deliver to their "customers".
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 2, 2009 10:40 AM
*worships at the feet of the great David Marjanović, OM*Such rare insight is found here at Pharyngula.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 2, 2009 10:42 AM
Here's the Apathetic Agnostic take on it:
1) As far as we can tell so far, the universe looks like there's nothing supernatural.
2) Therefore, if anything supernatural exists, it makes no difference.
3) Whether something that wouldn't even make any difference exists is a pretty useless question. We don't need to bother trying to answer it.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 2, 2009 10:56 AM
I keep being surprised at how this gets counted as an original insight. I wonder if the often-repeated claim is after all true and most people really are (…to some extent…) bisexual. ~:-|
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 2, 2009 10:58 AM
(And there I was thinking sexual orientation was among the few things where I conformed to any majority… I'm right-handed, but that pretty much is it, then. </sarcasm>)
Posted by: Andyo
|
November 2, 2009 11:06 AM
Actually, right-handed is my sexual orientation.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 2, 2009 11:11 AM
Andyo wins the thread!
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 2, 2009 11:11 AM
David Marjanović, OM @ 132;
"Here's the Apathetic Agnostic take on it:"
It can all be summed up in one efficient and gloriously disinterested word;
"Meh."
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 2, 2009 11:19 AM
"There is no such thing. If you're capable of being seduced by someone of your own sex, you're already gay or bi.
Hey, why am I still not in love with Cuttlefish? Because I'm not capable of it. Because I'm straight."
I would just like to point out that if (by some sci-fi alchemy) they ever transfer the consciousness of Cuttlefish into the body of an attractive young lady all bets are off so far as I am concerned.
Of course, they would have to modify Cutlefish's sexuality too, or the she that was formerly a he would be a lesbian, and the likes of me would have no chance.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
November 2, 2009 11:22 AM
Actually, right-handed is my sexual orientation.
Welcome to North Dakota!
Posted by: bcoppola
|
November 2, 2009 11:22 AM
Have you never heard of "bromance"?
And as for Mssrs. Marnanovic and Greenwood: SPLITTERS!! (but, OK yeah, "meh" is pretty good too.)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 2, 2009 11:42 AM
I'm ambidextrousPosted by: druidbros
|
November 2, 2009 11:45 AM
I didnt read through all the comments but enough to get the gist of the horrible arguments from the bigots. Has anyone mentioned the Kinsey study yet? It was very well researched and provided evidence that man (as an animal) has the same sexual proclivities as other animals. That means hoax and Mr Bill that homosexual behavior occurs in the same percentage in man as in other animals. Which means that its natural and normal.
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-data.html
As for the slur that homosexuality is responsible for child molestation, thats absolutely not true. How can you say you are a Xian and LIE like that?
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html
The summery....
The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.
Remember hoax and Mr Bill, the church promoted lies before - the Jews are murdering children as sacrifice, mongoloid children are of the devil and must be killed, and finally, the earth is the center of the universe. When will you guys learn to stop being willfully ignorant and stay out of science? The bible is NOT a science book.
Posted by: micheleinmichigan | November 2, 2009 3:19 PM
Yup, because those innocent students never saw their female dog humping the female kitty (oh dear, inter-species too, how perverse).
Or does that just happen in our house?
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 2, 2009 4:01 PM
Hi Janine,
Did I call you a nazi or did you just think I called you a nazi? How about some good old fashioned "quotation marks" to prove your claim that I called you a nazi.
I abhor nazism and I hope you do too.
Unless you mis-spoke when you said there are only 2 choices "agree with me or remain silent" I would love to see you demonstrate how that is unrelated to - November 1923 a reference by me to what the nazis were beginning to do. It was you who stood up and drew attention to yourself and asked I wonder if he is caling me a nazi.
Lion (IRC)
PS - You dont have to be a nazi to agree with some of their "because I said so" methods of persuasion.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 2, 2009 4:16 PM
In my house, no stuffed animal is safe from "it" (a spayed female toy breed) — and that includes stuffed lions.
Time to shackle this one and throw him into the dungeon where he will be mercilessly tortured for eternity.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 2, 2009 4:22 PM
Lyin' Lion is still a pointless idjit. I'll second Aratina in that the dungeon is the best place for that level of insipidity, stupidity, and just plain boring and pointless posts.
Posted by: Akiko | November 2, 2009 4:33 PM
I asked my mom about this. She is a common sense guru with a big educationwho happens to know a lot about animals. She said animals do not have the same brains we do so therefore they do not think like humans. If they exhibit "gay" behavior it is not for pleasure it is to exhibit domination, comfort or cope wth anxiety. If they did it soley for pleasure they would do it all of the time. If they live in same sex couples it is for companionship not sex. Homosexuality is not the ability to be turned on by the same sex it is the choice to only have sex with the same sex. Only humans have the higher order thinking to make that choice. But then she said even if animals were homosexual does that make a case for it being a natural human condition? Her answer was only if you choose to make all animal behaviors natural to humans like licking your butt with your tongue and eating your own placenta or the young of a rival. Just because animals do it does not mean people do it. The drive to procreate is created by the male delight in ejaculation.
Posted by: Andyo
|
November 2, 2009 4:40 PM
OK, this is an honest question, not a snarky one. Akiko, how old are you?
Posted by: Steve_C | November 2, 2009 5:09 PM
Akiko's mom fails that teaching moment.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | November 2, 2009 5:24 PM
Feynmaniac @ 82:
About bloody time.
Gregory Greenwood @ 114:
Something may be natural to the animal kingdom but decidedly unnatural for human beings.
This, of course, assumes humans are distinct from animals -- a somewhat contentious assumption, apparently.
"My arse is perfectly natural; but I am careful to wear breeches" - Voltaire
We would agree, then, that nature is not a basis for human ethics.
You're forgetting that the vast majority of pederast priests were homosexual pederasts.
The infiltration of Catholic seminaries by homosexual predators in the 1960s and 70s has been well documented.
Funny you should say that ...
druidbros @ 142:
Funny you should say that ...
Posted by: kopd | November 2, 2009 5:35 PM
Fear what you don't understand.
Hate what you fear.
It happens too often.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 2, 2009 5:37 PM
Even if this is true, your god still let them work for him and did nothing to stop them from causing the harm that they caused. How is it possible that an infinitely intelligent and powerful being couldn't think of a way to stop that from happening? Was he was too busy making Mary to appear in tacos in Guadalajara?
Ditto the church leadership, who kept it hidden - allowing more children to be raped - so as to prevent themseleves and the church from looking bad. In which chapter in the bible is the verse that instructs them that the needs of the public relations department are greater than those of the helpless?
Epic fail for both god and church - unless, of course, the former doesn't exist and the latter know that but maintain the charade regardless.
Posted by: Anri
|
November 2, 2009 7:52 PM
Pilty sez:
Something may be natural for gazelle but decidedly unnatural for king crabs. That means that one of those isn't an animal, and must therefore be superior.
Or something.
Yes, it does assume that.
Without basis, I can't help but notice.
"My face is perfectly natural; but I am careful to wear a burqa" - Women that Pilty (agrees with? Disagrees with? I dunno...)
Once again, assuming that human nature is different from nature nature, or natural nature, you know, that stuff.
Or something.
Also:
And the protection and defense of predators of all sorts, for money, power, and innocent flesh, has also been well documented, pretty much for all of the recorded history of the church.
I'm curious, Pilty, you seem to think that the church's problems are recent and tied to fairly a specific timeframe (otherwise, why bring up a timeframe?). At what time, in your opinion, was the church... how to put this... good enough for you?
Posted by: Caustic Gnostic | November 2, 2009 7:57 PM
Consider the case of the gay necrophiliac mallard. Perhaps these ducks regard coitus as equivalent to human CPR, and this one was trying to resuscitate his buddy. [IgNobel, iirc]
To the religionists:
Please prove that your god is anything more than a figment of the [all-too-]common imagination...and the main character of some shitty bronze-age slash fiction.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 2, 2009 8:02 PM
Piltdown Man @ 150;
"Something may be natural to the animal kingdom but decidedly unnatural for human beings.
This, of course, assumes humans are distinct from animals -- a somewhat contentious assumption, apparently."
The trouble with this position is that the determination that something is 'natural' for animals but 'unnatural' for humans is wholly arbitrary. I would concede that canabalism, while natural for crocodiles, is morally repugnant in humans (in most situations at least. I can imagine some extreme survival scenarios where, if I were to die, I would forgive my fellows from consuming my flesh to survive). This much we can agree on. However, I do not think that this point can stretch to homosexuality. Homosexuality is not demonstrably harmful to other individuals or to society as a collective. It is a purely private matter based upon an inherent and inborn characteristic of sexual orientation.
You say that humans are distinct from anilmals as if this should be accepted wisdom. I would contend that humans are simply animals who have developed, through evolutionary processes, a survival strategy that employs a highly complex problem solving brain. Once the complexity of this brain reached what might be called a 'critical mass', sentience was acheived. Culture and civilisation flows from our possession of this sentience, but sentience was not 'created' with this goal in mind. Sentience was not created in the religious sense at all. It is simply a superior competitive strategem when compared to evolutionary adaptations based on physical supremacy. We are animals, just singularly brilliant ones. With the responsibilities that come with our sapience.
"We would agree, then, that nature is not a basis for human ethics."
I would accept that human ethics did not come about as a direct result of nature, but I would add that they did not flow from a notional creator deity either. Concepts of human morality are social constructs that were conceived as a means of creating a functioning society. As civilisations grew and developed, so did our understanding of ethics. A cursorary examimation of history demonstrates that concepts of morality are far from static and immutable between epochs. I believe that the purpose of civilisation is in part to help us elevate ourselves above an instinctual, social-darwinist 'state of nature'. When I use the phrase 'state of nature' in this context I mean a might-makes-right, strong dominate the weak, Thucydidean model of socity.
Moving away from such a bloody and primitive state does not require the demonisation of alternate sexuality as against the will of a notional (and likely unprovable) godhead, rather the acheivement of such enlighjtenment requires that we consign such simplistic in group/out group concepts of limited identity to the scrap heap of history where they belong.
"You're forgetting that the vast majority of pederast priests were homosexual pederasts."
I was under the impression that the majority of the victims of clerical child abuse in Ireland were pre-pubescent girls. In any case, the abuse of a child who is of the same gender as their abuser is not an expression of homosexuality. It is an expression of paedophilia directed against a victim of the same sex as the abuser. Morally speaking, there is no difference between paedophilic abuse of a child irrespective of the relative genders of the abuser and the abused; all are horrific acts of child rape.
Child abusers who target victims of the same gender as themselves are not homosexual any more than child abusers who target victims of the opposite sex are heterosexual. Child abusers of all stripes do not have functioning adult sexuality. They are pathologically fixated on children. Equating homosexuality and child abuse is a false equivilency.
"He does say girls typically (not universally) exhibit distinct psychological traits which contrast with those typically exhibited by boys - intuitive and concrete rather than logical and abstract - and that these tend towards domesticity and nurturing.
I think he's right."
This is a quote from the link to your earlier post that you provided. I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say with this statement. Are you saying that women and men possess a fundamental disparity of brain physiology or psychological development that causes them to view the world in different ways. In this case predisposing women away from logical thought toward 'intuition'. Does this mean that you are opposed to the removal of education from girls, but in favour of different educational programmes for boys and girls? If you will forgive the somewhat florid and emotive analagy, educational 'apartheid'?
The remainder of the quote seems to imply that you believe that women have an inherent tendency toward 'domesticity and nurturing'. I do not wish to put words in your mouth, but does this position not sail dangerously close to effectively saying 'a woman's place is in the home?'
I can not accept either proposition. I believe that women are in every respect the intellectual equals of men. Varience in individual mental capacity is far more significant than any difference based upon gender. The position espoused by the person under discussion in your post serves only to reinforce sterotyped gender roles that seek to limit the opportunity for women to excel in certain fields, thus assuming the status of a would be self-fulfilling prophecy. It is not women's brains that need to change, it is the attitudes of some men toward the capacity of women.
Posted by: John Morales | November 2, 2009 8:18 PM
Gregory,
I'm human, and I don't find the concept of cannibalism morally repugnant (which is not to say I don't find it squicky — much like eating eyeballs or worms or feces — but if others want to do it, fine with me).
What supposedly makes it immoral?
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 2, 2009 8:38 PM
John Morales @ 156;
"I'm human, and I don't find the concept of cannibalism morally repugnant (which is not to say I don't find it squicky — much like eating eyeballs or worms or feces — but if others want to do it, fine with me).
What supposedly makes it immoral?"
Canabalism in and of itself could be argued to be morally neutral if we assume fully informed pre-mortem consent. If there is no such consent, however, then even if no violence was done to the donor of the flesh in question while alive, this would still be a violation of their bodily remains against their will and thus, in my mind at least, immoral. I should have added this caveat into the original post. My apologies for my sloppiness.
Posted by: kopd
|
November 2, 2009 8:46 PM
"Actually, right-handed is my sexual orientation."
I literally laughed out loud at that, and that's rare. :-D
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 2, 2009 8:49 PM
Of course, if canabalism were performed without death being involved then this changes the moral landscape again. For example, if two (or more) consenting adults choose to engage in technically canabalistic 'blood-play' then I have no problem with this. It is their concern alone and nothing to do with me.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 2, 2009 8:53 PM
The protection of child raping priests by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, including the man who is now Pope, is also well documented.
Posted by: John Morales | November 2, 2009 9:03 PM
Thanks, Gregory.
I'm glad you added "in my mind at least".
It still seems to me to be no more than a taboo, similar to the taboo against naming the dead in some societies.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 2, 2009 9:13 PM
John Morales @ 161;
"It still seems to me to be no more than a taboo, similar to the taboo against naming the dead in some societies."
You have a point there. I would just like to state for the record that after I die I would rather not be eaten unless a nice Gregory chop is the only thing standing between some poor soul and starvation. Even then, you should be careful. I am probably highly fattening, and may indeed contain harmful addatives. Always read the label . . .
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 2, 2009 9:18 PM
Hi Janine, Did I call you a nazi or did you just think I called you a nazi? How about some good old fashioned "quotation marks" to prove your claim that I called you a nazi.
Lion, you are a disingenuous asshole.
You react pretty strongly to the 1923 reference. (You want to put a band-aid on that raw nerve before it gets infected?) I think you share the position of many totalitarian dictators. Hitler thought himself a great man and consequently he "decided" who was a liar and who he would "allow" to "have equal footing" It was his ENDS that that he used to justify his means not his ARGUMENTS..
There is much equivalency between the Nazis and someone who says agree with us or remain silent.
The convenient (and lazy) unmentioned third option of the Nazis was a bullet in the head. (Ah…..that’s much easier than research and logic and truth.)
If I say that you share many qualities with the serial rapist and murderer, Ted Bundy; I am not saying that you are a serial rapist and murderer. And if you complain that it is an unfair characterization of you, I can claim I struck a nerve.
Fuck you and everything you stand for.
But stick around. No one with any sense takes anything you say seriously. You are merely a chew toy for our amusement. But the fact that you think that you contribute anything good and useful is galling. If you had any shame, you would shut up. But is seems you have been doing this for years.
Oh well. I do not feel bad about laughing at you. And I hope that other people are taking the same route.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 2, 2009 9:24 PM
Lyin' Irk deserves all the ridicule he gets.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 2, 2009 9:26 PM
Link fail.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 2, 2009 9:43 PM
Janine The Ineffable, OM @ 163
"Lion, you are a disingenuous as***le."
"F**k you and everything you stand for."
Now, now Janine, as Lion stated @ 89 he does not like "pejorative comments and expletives", so by their use we are failing to show "good faith" and generally acting as less than congenial hosts. Apparently, if we wish to win over theists such behaviour is just not cricket.
Fortunately, I have a solution. The next time someone not entirely dissimilar to Lion posts a comment that you find aggravating do not immediately sit down to write a response in the heat of the moment. Instead follow my own little check list.
1) Stare mouth agape in incredulity at that which has just appeared on screen by the alchemy of the intertubes.
2) Scream imprecations at the unfeeling monitor (Important Note:- this step is best undertaken only in the privacy of your own home to avoid . . . complications at work or in a public place).
3) If necessary for the full cathartic effect, threaten same with violence (Important Note:- see note on point 2 re proper venue).
4) Face/palm or head/desk (readers discretion) until calmer and/or slightly concussed.
5) Sit down and carefully craft an elaborately polite response that can be considered offensive to no one while still conspiring to convey your opinion of both the post and the contributor in question.
6) If someone completely unjustifiably calls you a nazi, then steps 1 through 5 are void. Tear into them, they deserve it.
By following these simple steps one can avoid online unpleasantness. This anger management tutorial is provided free of charge. Have a nice day.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 2, 2009 9:50 PM
Gregory Greenwood, you have offered great advise and I will make use of it. As for tearing into Lion, that is done only for my own amusement and (hopefully) the amusement of others. Lion in impervious to this.
Have no brain
Feel no pain
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 2, 2009 9:54 PM
Janine The Ineffable, OM;
"Gregory Greenwood, you have offered great advise and I will make use of it."
Why thank you. It is my pleasure to be of service.
"As for tearing into Lion, that is done only for my own amusement and (hopefully) the amusement of others."
It certainly amuses me. Carry on, fair lady. Carry on.
Posted by: buildmonkey | November 3, 2009 10:12 AM
@#5 mickle. Not sure if anybody got round to answering to answering your question before the bunfight started. I wasn’t going to wade through all of that.
“So, what's wrong with the article?”
My understanding is that there are a few problems. Firstly, if the article is correct, Roughgarden is vigourously attacking a rather musty and decayed strawman. The characterisation given of current ideas on sexual selection and how co-operation can evolve is charitably best described as ‘somewhat outdated’. I grew more and more gobsmacked as I read it.
Secondly I was intrigued by all the listed ways that homosexuality occurs in other animals but the idea that it can form part of co-operative strategies that actually allow a net reproductive gain seems to have been around a while now. That and the outdated model of sexual selection more than justified the accusation of ignorance.
Thirdly the assumption that it if homosexuality is a feature and not a bug then it must inevitably be adaptive is not currently fashionable. I am not qualified to speak on this.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
November 3, 2009 11:07 AM