Pharyngula

Posted by: PGPWNIT | November 2, 2009 10:37 AM

yay jesus....isn't that cute.

Posted by: Michelle R | November 2, 2009 10:40 AM

The only thing missing is glitter glue. WHY wasn't any glitter glue available for them?! Outrage.

Posted by: Alverant | November 2, 2009 10:43 AM

At least now you know which forms can be safely ignored. What a waste. They couldn't even be bothered to read the form. Is your course an option for the required courses for graduation?

How bad were the negative ones that were legit (didn't inject religion into the survey forms or appear to have been written by assholes just for the sake of being assholes)?

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | November 2, 2009 10:52 AM

... and this is why we need intelligence testing as a prerequisite for voting.

Posted by: Standard Curve | November 2, 2009 10:54 AM

Based on her answer to question 3, I am guessing that the girl (assumption based on heart doodle, admittedly could be a guy) that wrote the first note was probably given that talking doll that said "math is hard" when she was younger.

Posted by: chgo_liz | November 2, 2009 10:59 AM

I second Zifnab's question: why were they even there?

My guesses:
- Required attendance
- The only thing to do in Minot that night
- Free wine & beer afterward
- Planned Jesus hecklers got cold feet at the last minute
- The title of your talk was "Glittery unicorns are proof that we should all praise creation"

Posted by: whitebird | November 2, 2009 11:00 AM

Agree with #8. I might believe it if this were some compulsory lecture in a shopping mall..It might be safe to assume that there are three PZ fans high-fiving, laughing their asses off "dude, we got on the blog!". At least I hope.

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 2, 2009 11:13 AM

The dots, though, are just weird. Why? Is there some convention with which I am unfamiliar?

I remember girls in grade school used to do it... It may be explanitive. The people at your lecture that left notes like that have the intelligence of a grade schooler.

Posted by: Ms. Crazy Pants | November 2, 2009 11:20 AM

Sorta makes me wonder what ever happened to the idea of a well rounded education. My bachelor's degree is in music, and I found PZ easy to understand the time I went to hear him speak. In fact, I even caught some of the biology-type jokes. :-)

"You know, I know stereotypes are bad and all but as a girl, I have the feeling that all three posted there were girls. Just because of the doodles on the letters."

Are you ...
___ Male
___ Female
___ Female with brains

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | November 2, 2009 11:22 AM

My bachelor's degree is in music, and I found PZ easy to understand the time I went to hear him speak.

Posted by: Michelle R | November 2, 2009 11:23 AM

@KemaTheAtheist:
Not just grade school. It was massively used in high school too, and sometimes even in college girls.

Making your letters pretty is on the same level as putting little hearts on your "i"s. It's cute. It's girly.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | November 2, 2009 11:23 AM

Hmmm. Those dots. They look familiar. The dots remind me of Fremont, Anasazi, and Ute rock art in Utah. Some experts have speculated that the dots may refer to how many days travel it was to a waterhole, or to another village, etc.

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 2, 2009 11:35 AM

Not just grade school. It was massively used in high school too, and sometimes even in college girls.

Making your letters pretty is on the same level as putting little hearts on your "i"s. It's cute. It's girly.

Now that I think of it, maybe I did see some of it in highschool, but in college I was a computer science major.

I had very little contact with the female sex. There were very few ever actually in my classes, so most of the girls were probably curtailing most of the cutesy stuff trying to fit in with the guys.

Posted by: Richard eis | November 2, 2009 11:39 AM

Are we sure these aren't the same person?

Maybe the dots are a pen version of comic sans.

Posted by: Buttered Potato | November 2, 2009 11:40 AM

No need to turn one's brain on. "God did it" is simple enough. It explains everything, by explaining nothing.

The continuous scorn for Comic Sans is making me feel at home. Thank you all :)

Posted by: VenDexter | November 2, 2009 11:46 AM

I remember those dotted letters being popular with the cheerleader crowd when I was in High School back in the late 80's.

They were a result of the overuse of paint pens to write names on everything that had an available space for such.

I suggest that it's indicative that Jesus-o-philes are either stuck in the 1980's or have the mentality of a group of 10th graders.

Posted by: demha | November 2, 2009 11:51 AM

#14 says: "I have the feeling that all three posted there were girls."

I agree, only I have to say it looks like it's just one girl (as #29 pointed out). However, if the person was being facetious to begin with (seriously, "yay jesus" as a way of improving the program?), it could be suggested that it was just another guy with a lot of time on his hands.

Posted by: MonsignorHenryClay | November 2, 2009 11:53 AM

@PZ #15:

According to these Lewis Structures, Jesus is a weak acid.

Posted by: evinfuilt | November 2, 2009 12:03 PM

I remember those dots, from about second grade when people were actually learning to write.

If I actually saw anything from an "adult" or heck someone over 7 years of age with that style of writing I'd be hard pressed to not contact them, they need to be helped and sent back to school to finish their education.

Posted by: Carlie | November 2, 2009 12:04 PM

I believe that is the 21st century version of illuminated text.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 2, 2009 12:05 PM

I agree. Also, it is very embarrassing to have any kind of association with "bobble heads," even if the only thing we have in common is that we're female. Some days it makes me wish there was an additional designation for one's sex:

Are you ...
___ Male
___ Female
___ Female with brains

You forgot a category; Male with brains.

I am working so very hard at refraining from saying something snarky.

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist's Alter-ego (The Grammar Nazi) | November 2, 2009 12:11 PM

@42

OMG!!! YOU HAVE THE WORT SPELLING, GRAMMER, AND PUNCTUATION EVAR!!!!!!

Posted by: stptrck75 | November 2, 2009 12:14 PM

That's hilarious. Please let it not be a Poe.

Posted by: MrFire | November 2, 2009 12:20 PM

The dots, though, are just weird. Why? Is there some convention with which I am unfamiliar?

Clearly you are behind with the times. Bling for Jesus is the new hot thing!

Posted by: RamblinDude | November 2, 2009 12:31 PM

I think the dots are little love-nails. Jesus is everywhere!

Posted by: JarrodB | November 2, 2009 12:32 PM

To #50, I think they meant the actual review in the pictures. I have to admit, I might think it was funny to do something like that.

Posted by: llewelly | November 2, 2009 12:58 PM

PZ Myers Author Profile Page | November 2, 2009 11:08 AM:

The dots, though, are just weird.

Posted by: Dianne | November 2, 2009 1:03 PM

You forgot a category; Male with brains.

This could be because the commenter thought:
1. All men have brains so it's redundant or
2. No man has brains so it's unnecessary to mention a category which is inherently the null set.

Hard to say which interpretation is worse.

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | November 2, 2009 1:06 PM

Brownian,

Interesting link. Love Arabic calligraphy.

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 2, 2009 1:15 PM

You forgot a category; Male with brains.

This could be because the commenter thought:
1. All men have brains so it's redundant or
2. No man has brains so it's unnecessary to mention a category which is inherently the null set.

Hard to say which interpretation is worse.

It was number 1. And I agree... all men have brains. In fact we actually have two brains!

But, generally, there's only about a two hour time period after having sex that we use the one inside our skull. So, you can take that as consolation that he didn't add the "Male with brains" category to the selections.

There are exceptions to this rule as there are exceptions to most rules, but you get the point.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 2, 2009 1:22 PM

I really hope people aren't being serious about their desire for IQ testing for voting, children etc...

I'm having a shitty day so my humor-detector is on the fritz.

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 2, 2009 1:28 PM

chgo_liz @62

For a procreation license, I'd be more interested in psychological testing than means testing.

Very good point and I had actually thought about this, but thought of two problems with it.

First, just because you're sane doesn't mean your household makes enough money or living conditions are good enough to properly care for a child.

Second, religion isn't considered a mental illness yet, and even if we know someone is batshit insane we couldn't deny the license. :-P

I guess the psychological testing would be good in weeding out some people though... Maybe both tests would be best.

We still have the huge problem of being able to morally enforce it though.

Posted by: WRMartin | November 2, 2009 1:31 PM

The dots, though, are just weird. Why?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | November 2, 2009 1:33 PM

@Jeff Eyges,

Me too. I'd once read that it's because of the proscription against drawing human or animal forms as idolatry that Islamic art and architecture is so geometrical. Whatever the reason, it works for me. I'm obsessed with tessellations. (The background here is a pattern I created based on one I once saw called the Baghdad Tessellation, though the mighty Google gives no hits for that name.)

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 2, 2009 1:35 PM

If I write "GAY JESUS!" will I go to hell, or remedial classes?

To a fabulous dinner party where twelve dudes will eat you.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | November 2, 2009 1:40 PM

Why waste the ink on that option, Janine? You know as well as I that it's as useless as papsmears in twenty-year-olds.

It may just be my shaky mastery of English, but why do they consistently give that answer to "Offer your ideas for improving this program"? It reads like classic non sequitur to me - I cannot parse the answer as being grammatical to the question.

PS: I have removed myself for the genepool for what it's worth (well, still have the test to go). Not that it was really necessary, but I might as well walk the walk.

Posted by: DeanFromBC | November 2, 2009 1:44 PM

I want to second Richard at #29. I would not be at all surprised to learn that at least the first and third were the same person. Too much similarity between the writing, with just enough difference as if someone was making a conscious effort to change their writing. They are too addicted, it would seem, to the stupid dots to drop them, however.

I can imagine a PZ fan having a chuckle this morning, too, at seeing his handiwork on the blog.

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 2, 2009 1:53 PM

I really hope people aren't being serious about their desire for IQ testing for voting, children etc...

I'm having a shitty day so my humor-detector is on the fritz.

Half yes, half no. I would never expect the implementation of any of that every again, but at the same time I'm not designing the test to discriminate against race, sexual orientation, or even literacy.

I'm discriminating against people who actually have no idea what they're voting for. I don't care if the test it oral or written, but if someone can't tell you the basics of the policies of the candidate they're voting for, then they should't get to vote. If they can't tell you the basics about a proposition, then they shouldn't get to cast a vote about it. And, I am serious about that.

As to the child thing: Again, nice idea hypothetically, but it's not plausible because of moral issues and laws already in place. But, I don't think anyone could seriously think that people like Octo-mom and the Dugger family are truly fit to have kids when they survive only on welfare and donations.

It's fun to consider the possibilities even if you never expect them to have a snowball's chance in hell of ever becoming reality.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 2, 2009 1:55 PM

-... but Cthulu ♥s you...-

That's on par with "i'll pray for you" I fear.

-Second, religion isn't considered a mental illness yet-

It just has most of the hallmarks.

-First, just because you're sane doesn't mean your household makes enough money or living conditions are good enough to properly care for a child.-

People need to be more responsible. Large families should be frowned upon by society and do things that way (sociologically). You would never get anything else through government. It would also be almost unenforceable.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 2, 2009 2:06 PM

But, I don't think anyone could seriously think that people like Octo-mom and the Dugger family are truly fit to have kids when they survive only on welfare and donations.

Then let them have welfare and donations. :-| I'm more concerned about those who simply can't seem to figure out what to do when a child cries (and believe it's a personal insult to them or something).

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 2, 2009 2:10 PM

@73

You know as well as I that it's as useless as papsmears in twenty-year-olds.

Offtopic as to what you were really talking about, and maybe this was a little tongue-in-cheek, but why would a papsmear be useless in a twenty-year-old?

Posted by: Dr. P | November 2, 2009 2:13 PM

I'm damned to hell for screwing up my blockquotes again; anyone want to join me?

Posted by: Aratina Cage | November 2, 2009 2:20 PM

sas-qwatch, rah-rah! GooooooOOOOOO SASQWATCH! Too funny.

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 2, 2009 2:25 PM

Then let them have welfare and donations. :-| I'm more concerned about those who simply can't seem to figure out what to do when a child cries (and believe it's a personal insult to them or something).

First, I don't want to let them have welfare and donations. I'm not against some charity and such, but some it far too easy to get. Octo-mom got pregnant on government money and uses even more government money to provide for them. Not to mention the fact she had 3-4 times the number of fertal eggs implanted than would be normal for a woman of her age.

She's playing the system and won't work a day because of it. That's bullshit.

Second, I do completely agree that I do worry more about people who don't even know what to do when a baby is crying, but at the same time, I think those people would be willing to learn to care for their child and will do something about it if it is made known to them where they can take a class on childcare. But, people like octo-mom will never change unless something forces them to.

Posted by: JohnnieCanuck | November 2, 2009 2:44 PM

Skookumchuk? What on earth does a word meaning 'strong water' have to do with a frivolous font like that? Someone must have just liked the sound of the word without any regard for the meaning.

It's from Chinook which is the old Pacific Northwest trading language. A few words live on in local English but mostly it is only seen in placenames. It is reported to have been a very colourful language, rich in insults. For example, cultus tillicum.

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 2, 2009 2:49 PM

As attractive as it may seem to us elitists (face it, if you even entertain the thought of restrict anyone's ability to breed you are an elitist by definition)...

Damn straight. I'd glad to be elite. That's supposed to be a good thing.

to license breeding to those either with the means and/or the "correct" psychological makeup, can you imagine the can of worms you'd open? Just for starters: those that claim to believe in god far outnumber us atheists. Is it a stretch to imagine that professed atheism could be grounds for refusal of a breeding license?

Did anyone ever say seriously that religion would be a determining factor? I thought the :-P I put after my statement was going to save me from being a Poe, but maybe someone else said something I missed?

Let's get off our high horse of intellectual smugness and forget about trying to keep the "undesirables" from multiplying. (Oh how I wanted to go Godwin on this comment.) Idiocracy, here we come. (Are?)

First, it's not being smug. It's using common sense... it's undeniable that some people really shouldn't be having kids due to poverty issues and/or living conditions. They're people that are not mentally stable, drug users, prostitutes, or high schoolers. And, before anyone says anything, no, I'm not equating high schoolers to prostitutes and drug users. They're just too young to be having kids.

Second, this was mostly tongue-in-cheek hypothetical and I said MANY times that there was no moral way to enforce it. To me, this was more just a brain exercise than anything else.

Third, there's a huge difference between suggesting certain people don't procreate, to enforcing people not to, to killing people for certain traits we don't like. As a pharyngulite you should know better than to make the slippery-slope argument.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 2, 2009 2:54 PM

Not sure why I tailed off there. I think that was a thought that I didn't fully delete.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 2, 2009 3:05 PM

As someone who was born to a poor fifteen year old and who doodled on my notes when I was in school I'm feeling uncomfortably targeted for extermination or at least sterilization.

DeanFromBC makes a good point that should restrictions on breeding ever be put into effect, those restrictions may not be the ones you would personally favor.

As an inveterate doodler, I favor the notion that these were pranks. Even I tried not to doodle on things I thought other people would see. However, I favored daisies, not hearts, and the dots are a mystery to me.

Posted by: sasqwatch | November 2, 2009 3:12 PM

seriously re: the voting issue...

I agree with the notion of a ballot test of sorts... it would have to be issue-specific, though -- as many times people have valid notions about some issues and not others. Makes it kind of tough to implement, as wording language-comprehension issues abound. I can easily envision people contesting the question wordings until the cows come home.

This last election here, in El Paso County Colorado (Colorado Springs), fuckle of the bibull belt... would not have been a good example of a ballot worth a test.

It consisted of two questions: one which raised taxes, and one which limited raising taxes. In addition, there were elections of various school district supers.

The first vote is a vote to keep a cash-strapped county from having to keep hacking away at services, while the other vote is a continuation of Rep. Doug Bruce's lunacy that got us here in the first place.

If you are deciding between the various luminaries that will supervise the school districts, you know which ones are more rational and measured, which ones are off a libertarian deep end, and which are cretinists.

You can test all you want on that election. The ones who are actually bothering to vote for these people know their answer to the question: "what do you think about the introduction of ID in science classes", because this was expounded in voter guides (incl. the local "Independent").

It's a litmus test for "are you gonna vote for the godhead?"

So people are actively voting in ways that I don't agree with, because they are stupid. They could take that voter test and get 100% on it, no problem. And then they'd go right in and cast their stupid votes. It turns out there's actually right ways and wrong ways to vote here; it's not just a matter of opinion. Nobody who values civil society wants that thick dullard asshole on the school board, but that's exactly what the "polity" will give you, almost every time. At least around here.

ah here we go... another example of the world class stupid that blankets this area: President Palin. Case closed.

The thing is, I cannot imagine a good (difficult to "game") quick (multiple choice) test for intelligence and rationality. I can pick out stupid with my naked eye from a mile away, though. Maybe instead of intelligence testing we need stupid testing.

Posted by: llewelly | November 2, 2009 3:28 PM

Rather than trying to disenfranchise the ignorant, we should try to educate them, so they'll make better decisions.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 2, 2009 3:41 PM

Rather than trying to disenfranchise the ignorant, we should try to educate them, so they'll make better decisions.

Yep

Posted by: voskw | November 2, 2009 3:54 PM

I say they are not dots, but rather "nodes". In botany, a node is the place on a plant stem where a leaf is attached. Therefore, since this lecture was given in the fall...

Posted by: SEF | November 2, 2009 4:05 PM

I went all the way to the Alhambra with a snazzy new camera especially bought for the trip (with the express purpose of getting images of the tesselations) - and it died irretrievably in the entranceway! :-(

A battery change was no help, even though that was what it had whinged about needing and had been given just before it expired completely (and was given again afterwards with a fresh packet from the tourist shop). It had to go back to the manufacturer's for a complete overhaul of its innards and software once I got back to the UK (it was still within guarantee of course).

Posted by: Mr T | November 2, 2009 4:11 PM

Kema, #106:

Might as well spend you time throwing dry noodles at the wall. You've got about the same amount of chance of the noodles sticking as you do having a cretinist learning.

But on a more serious note: education works, for fuck's sake. If "dry noodles" is your best argument, then I suppose there's not much of a threat that we'll ever have to deal with the problem of you creating an even more dystopian society than we already have.

Posted by: Travis | November 2, 2009 4:31 PM

I really like the comment about it being hard and that only a bio major would get it. Did they look around and assume that everyone else was as lost and confused? Why do these people never look around and think, "if everyone else seems to be understanding this without being a biology major, maybe I am stupid and ignorant."

*sigh* it is a bit of a bitter teaching day, sorry.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | November 2, 2009 4:56 PM

Offer your ideas for improving this program. YEA JESUS!

Pardon me, sir or madam as the case may be, but how does YEA JESUS! improve a lecture program?

Posted by: BBCaddict | November 2, 2009 5:13 PM

Maybe they're missing writing in yearbooks already.
Man the handwriting too... it's like the notes that get passed in 4th grade.
"Do you like jeebus? Y / N (circle one)"

Posted by: momentofsciencetx | November 2, 2009 5:26 PM

Is anyone shocked the JESUS LOVES YOU CROWD didn't understand biology.

Posted by: R-Tam | November 2, 2009 5:36 PM

"Also, it is very embarrassing to have any kind of association with "bobble heads," even if the only thing we have in common is that we're female. Some days it makes me wish there was an additional designation for one's sex:

Are you ...
___ Male
___ Female
___ Female with brains"

I just luuuurve how you imply that default female means without brains. And by "lurve" I mean "hate it with the fire of a thousand suns".

If you're going to be a sexist douchebag, you should go play with the Jesus lovers. You'll fit right in!

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | November 2, 2009 5:40 PM

You know, "Yay Jesus" may be a guy. I base this on the fact that I knew a fundie in college (had to work with him, actually) that used a very similar font for some of his "yay jesus" work.

Am I the first to note that the font Mr. Ideas for Improving this Program is riffing on and potato722's "Yay Jesus" coworker was undoubtedly using is clearly Jokerman, included with most Microsoft Office installations?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | November 2, 2009 5:57 PM

"The McCain supporters, who went to his rallies and actually booed him when he tried to tell them Obama wasn't a monster, because they just knew he was a Moos-lem, and therefore a terrorist, and therefore guilty of capital crimes - they don't get to vote. The birthers and the teabaggers don't get to vote. (Does anyone really want to argue with me about that one?)
"

Honestly, most of these people are probably not that low. Having wingnut views and being generally weird do not really qualify as crazy nor do they imply a low IQ.

Why not stick to trying to increase the general level of education in the USA? You'll make better headway that way I think.

Posted by: Biology Blogger | November 2, 2009 6:01 PM

This might sound really stupid, but is this an actual grade or did you make up the sheet and answers?

Posted by: Desert Son | November 2, 2009 6:17 PM

I turned 18 in a national election year, and voted for the first time in the election between Clinton, Dole, and Perot. I voted for Perot.

Why?

I'm not sure I can give you a very good reason. I was young, and wanted to vote for someone that didn't seem to be the mainstream (of either predominant U.S. party). Was I really focused on his platform? Not really.

Am I an idiot? I might very well be. According to KemaTheAtheist and Jeff Eyges, I might not be eligible to vote in their system. Yet, over time, I've changed perspective, understanding, and I've learned a number of things. I was a believer for a long time (liberal Episcopalian, from parents who are conservative Episcopalian). Perhaps I'm a dry noodle . . . .

If intelligence is a static quality, independent of other factors, including opportunity, expression, environment, scaffolding, agency, cultural literacies, and so forth, then holding voting solely on intellectual capability might, potentially, withhold all of us from voting. There are plenty of people who are quite intelligent, yet nonetheless pay little heed to political issues. There are intelligent people who vote on party affiliation without consideration of what that affiliation holds as policy.

Am I smarter now than I was at age 18? I think so. Do some individuals lose "smarts" as they age? Sure. My parents are smart, but they're devout believers in god. Jeff Eyges thinks they get a vote, because they're "intelligent Christians." KematheAtheist proposes that they pass a test of issues understanding in order to vote.

That's an intriguing possibility, assuming that my parent's version of what the issues are and what the candidate stands for is the same as a liberal atheist's (or liberal Buddhist's, or liberal Wiccan's, or whatever) understanding. Or, for that matter, that my parent's understanding of the issues/platform are the same as the conservative Christian down the road.

I hold with "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it," and hold that voting is a form of speech expression.

I think the idiots get to vote. Someday, I just might be the idiot, for any number of reasons (brain injury in an automobile accident, for example). All kinds of intelligent people are idiots about all kinds of things at different points and under different circumstances. One danger of democracy is always that those who practice it will practice themselves out of the very democracy they enjoy. The freedom of democracy is worth that risk.

But then, maybe I shouldn't be allowed to vote. No telling how I'd do on the test.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | November 2, 2009 6:26 PM

aratina cage, I'm surely not the first to note that you're one hell of a smartass ;)

Posted by: Aratina Cage | November 2, 2009 6:38 PM

I'm surely not the first to note that you're one hell of a smartass ;) -Brownian

Posted by: Zimriel | November 2, 2009 6:41 PM

Eyges 120: "The birthers and the teabaggers don't get to vote. (Does anyone really want to argue with me about that one?)"

I'll gladly argue with you over that "teabagger" slur.

Leave aside the birthers; I think they are a seditious rabble deserving arrest for treason. And yes, the smaller Tea Party rallies have too high a proportion of John Birch types. But that's not inherent to the Tea Party movement.

The Tea Party movement is inherently fiscal; involving, for one, the Libertarian Party (a secular bunch).

In addition, since Obama the college-Marxist got 52% of the vote, just like King George III would have got 52% or more of the colonists behind him if he'd had a referendum: Tea Parties, by insisting on a Constitutional platform against the wishes of the majority, are on your side. They're not a pro-democracy constituency.

You might think twice before alienating the lot of them.

Unless you're a looter yourself, in which case, consider yourself beaten with the Ayn Rand book of your choice.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | November 2, 2009 6:46 PM

For decades, especially in the southern states of the US, there were literacy tests for voting. Somehow very few whites failed the tests but very few blacks passed them. If there's a subjective voting test instituted, then it becomes very easy to manipulate to ensure that only the right voters can vote.

Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | November 2, 2009 6:51 PM

Bwahahahaha!

Join the club, PZ. I don't know how many times I've been left messages like 'Jesus loves you' or 'I'll pray for you' on my desks or in student work. Occasionally one of the little darlings will deface a textbook with their message of love, the wondrous love that dares not speak the name of 'vandal'.

This is pretty clearly a defense mechanism on the part of the freshmen and sophomore high school kids I teach, so I tend to take a pretty bland view of it. But I have in my time gotten the more threatening variety, the 'some day you'll know the truth and then you'll be sorry' screed. It almost never occurs to my charges that I might be a churchgoer and a fellow faithhead, so strongly have they been indoctrinated prior to high school.

Remember, some of this passive-aggressive behavior is driven by the cognitive dissonance with their cherished prior beliefs, and some of it is driven by the natural hostility people feel when something seems hard to follow or not relevant to their lives. 'God did it' isn't just a comforting teddy bear of sentiment, it's also a simplifying move for those who don't want to think, or who don't want to conceptualize things a certain way.

(grinning) Kind of like PZ's reaction to the natterings of philosophers!

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | November 2, 2009 7:02 PM

I'm surely not the first to note that you're one hell of a smartass...

The real smartass is the joker who got that font into the Office installation script...

... well, them and whoever let loose Comic Sans on the world. But while the Jokerman provocateur may have been more just a whimsical troublemaker, I figure the Comic Sans act is more probably the work of a moustache-twirling evil typographer type with more clearly malevolent intentions: 'Fools! With this font and control of the GeoCities template system, I shall wreak havoc on page design everywhere!!! BWUHAHAHAHAHAHA....'

... oh, and as to the whole 'Don't let idiots vote', yeah, what those who've pointed out certain rather serious practical concerns said. Much as I've more than occasionally muttered such sentiments under my breath myself, there are bad ideas, and then there are Seriously Fucking Bad Ideas, and that one is in the latter category, I'm afraid. Pretty much right up there with Comic Sans and taking advice from former softcore porn stars on your kids' vaccination schedules... Yes, it often seems in the race between stupidity and sense stupidity wins from some disturbing dynamic of contagion, and nothing spreads like bullshit. But the US' own experience of eugenics in the 30s and 40s (against, no joke, the 'feeble-minded') really ought to give pause to anyone considering such a move. Educate, argue, ridicule, damn straight. But legislation aimed at categorizing folk as 'too dumb for X', it does have a way of going incredibly wrong...

(/Disastrously wrong... Handing a loaded shotgun to a monkey wrong... And okay, done now with that...)

As to the notion that there's some test we're going to come up with that would make this actually practical/effective/fair: I find this beyond risibly impractical for a dizzying number of reasons. Like the politics that would arise within the very process. Like the fact that the interplay of genetics and environment in this area probably makes the weirdest non-linear systems look positively Euclidean anyway. Like the difficulty of even establishing a proper objective measure of most of the factors you're looking at. And that's just for starters. Intelligence isn't really a number to begin with, nor is political nor economic wisdom. To say the measures we do have are rough is putting it very, very gently.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | November 2, 2009 7:15 PM

I realize it's quite annoying knowing the reasons why some people vote for a candidate. "I voted for Palin because she's so sexy." "I voted for Obama to prove that America isn't racist any more." "If Blair had become a Catholic before the last general election I would have voted for anyone other than Labour."

It's annoying that my Uncle Ralph, who's one of the most bigoted people I've ever met, has the same right to vote that I do. Single issue voters annoy me, even if I happen to agree with them on that issue. However, and this is a major however, I won't stop any of these people from voting. In fact I will work hard to ensure they retain the right to vote.

Posted by: Anomic Entropy | November 2, 2009 7:24 PM

OK, I usually read this blog, happily lurking as I laugh along with pharyngulite witticisms and absorb opinions and information without any desire to add my own two cents. But jeezus this thread is pissing me off.

Brainless females are the default? Really? Let me guess... You also complain that women are catty and mean so you prefer male friends? Ah, the sweet smell of misogyny.

I can't believe the bitching and moaning about the uselessness of trying to educate the ignorant. Everyone starts off ignorant. That's the point of education. Assuming that the ignorant are maintaining that status deliberately seems to me to be defeatist or just lazy. People are raised with certain sets of beliefs, superstitions and other cultural "gifts" that are built upon or discarded as necessary throughout the lifespan. For those of us who were raised within fundamentalist religions, ignorance is not a matter of rejecting critical thinking, but a product of restriction and censorship. Fortunately liberal arts colleges and universities present people raised with these weaknesses exposure to new ways of thinking. Promoting and funding education gives more people the option to access knowledge and reduce ignorance. This appears, to me, to be a pragmatic approach to reducing overall ignorance in the current population, which generally correlates to smaller family size and better education for the next generation. What's not to love?

As for the breeding/parenting license, it seems to me that an awful lot of people are basically calling for eugenics. Regardless of the preferred criteria, whether financial, psychological, etc., the element of humanity is removed in favor of one person's (or group's) personal quantitative soapbox. How is that ethical in any way?

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | November 2, 2009 7:40 PM

Anomic Entropy,

1. There's ignorance, and there's willful ignorance.

2. Eugenics got a bad rap due to it's early unfortunate associations. We get pissed off when the fundies blame atheism for genocide. If you could breed out cancer or diabetes, would you do it? Why not breed out stupidity?

And I don't want to hear any whining from the knee-jerk libertarians - "Who are you to determine the cut-off?" You all know perfectly well what I mean.

Posted by: DeanFromBC | November 2, 2009 8:05 PM

Well said, Atomic.

One of the problems we face with education in the babble belt is that school boards end up stacked with ignorant people who enact policies to ensure that education system doesn't actually educate. They perpetuate their own cycle of ignorance. Unfortunately it can drag everyone down with them.

Voting restrictions and (far, far, worse) eugenics are not answers. Hell, education may not be an answer either. We may be doomed to stupidity, and homo sapiens may crawl back into caves in another 1000 generations.

I saw a tattoo on the net a while back. It was a sequence of images showing man evolving from an ancestral species (I'm sure you've all seen this), followed by a man carrying a cross and de-evolving back into a hunched, hairy predecessor. I think the guy was onto something.

Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 2, 2009 8:11 PM

I understand the reference as well. You wouldn't attempt to breed out cancer because it might involve the same gene as a beneficial adaptation?

Attempt? On a small scale, yes. Mass breeding program based on limited data? Not a chance. Go look at the health problems in dog breeds and tell me that it's a good idea to try and breed specific traits without full knowledge.

Posted by: Shala | November 2, 2009 8:32 PM

I'd like to pitch in and say that the idea of procreation licenses are completely insane. I have no idea why no one's said that until now. Speaking as someone who has absolutely no desire to have children: What right do you have to decide who gets to procreate? It's not just elitist, it's fucking monstrous.

Education is the cure for ignorance, guys.

Posted by: Ron Sullivan | November 2, 2009 9:24 PM

It's been said more eloquently above, and by Steve Gould if you want a whole non-accommodationist book* about it, but let me reiterate:

Any person who puts even a little faith in "intelligence" as a quality they can test for—or even as an distinct entity, never mind a number—is more stupid than any person who puts that much faith in a god.

I've played with IQ tests and they've played with me, in the sense that I got loaded with impossible expectations after I took them, way back when. They're bullshit. Don't believe me? Think they're good for something? I came out of that mess with a measured IQ of 184, so STFU and listen to me.

*The Mismeasure of Man, of course.

Posted by: TomRiddle | November 2, 2009 10:42 PM

We've GOT to be able to come up with a healthier society than we have now.

Sure, but how does limiting political power to a select few accomplish that? Time constraints alone dictate that becoming an expert in one field virtually mandates that you lose focus on other fields. The more select you make the voter requirement, the narrower the knowledgebase of those individuals. Broaden the requirements and you risk including a group that disagrees with your main focuses.

As to your subsequent examples - I'm sorry, but I just don't don't agree with you. It would be easy enough to take all of that into consideration.

What precisely don't you agree with... that less educated individuals provide meaningful input that the well educated may not have, or that well educated individuals have too narrow of a focus to consider all issues properly? Either way you'll have a hell of a time supporting the counterargument. If there is a third option I missed, by all means elaborate.

Posted by: Desert Son | November 2, 2009 11:50 PM

Further thoughts on the "willfully ignorant don't get to vote" idea.

I am willfully ignorant of some things in life, probably many things. Sure, I like to learn more about all kinds of things, but there's only so much I can possibly learn in roughly 75 years, so there's vast swathes of stuff I'll never know about. Included in those swathes are things that I'm likely to actively avoid learning about.

Does this mean I shouldn't be allowed to vote?

If we're denying the right to vote to populations, we have to ask why, and we have to gauge how we look at those populations. I would hope that we extend to populations the rights and privileges we hold as owed to all humans, including (and sometimes especially) the ones we disagree with so strongly.

The counter, of course, is the notion that, "But those people wouldn't extend those same rights and privileges to us!"

That's possible. Again, that's the risk of democracy, that as a system it risks the use of that very system to destroy the freedoms a democracy holds dear. That's a risk worth taking to enjoy those freedoms. It's the same reason we invoke the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" in our system of justice (whether that always gets acted out with honesty and integrity is another discussion) and due process. I'd rather have those things in place even at the risk that they may not always be able to protect me, and that sometimes criminals who might do me harm might not be caught by the system, or escape "justice" because the law has to be upheld for all people, not just some that we feel like.

"Freedom isn't free," is a slogan that's often associated with U.S. military service. I think the statement's actually a higher ideal than that (which is not, incidentally, a denigration of military service). I think "freedom isn't free" means that the exercise of freedom always entails risk, but that the benefits of freedom outweighs the risks.

I should point out, however, that I think freedom has to operate within socially-constructed systems of laws, and that the laws have to apply to all participants in the social system. I say this lest it sound like I'm advocating for economic L-word-tarianism, which I most certainly do not.

The societal freedoms, however, include families that want to have 15 children they can't possibly support, either because they imagine that whatever sky spirit they venerate will provide for them, or society will. That's a risk I'm willing to take, especially because maybe the mother and/or father that made that decision didn't think about things like sustainability and responsible citizenship and so forth, but maybe, just maybe, there's a chance that their 15 children just might, and go far in doing that which their forebears did not for the betterment of society.

I'm probably not explaining this very well, and damnit, I'm tired, and I'm going to bed. I was kind of cranky today, and thought my mood might improve this evening, and frankly it hasn't, so I'm going to switch tactics and enter the gravitational pull of the bed just down the hall.

Since eugenics has come up, I'll put in the monthly (or so) plug for Steven Selden's 1999 book, Inheriting Shame: The Story of Eugenics and Racism in America. Outstanding read.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Janet Holmes | November 3, 2009 12:48 AM

Re posts 73 and 83, pap smears for 20 year-olds are not a waste of time, every sexually active female should have regular pap smears. I have a friend who lost most of her cervix along with her chance of motherhood by age 26 due to not enough pap smears in her life!

No-one is too young for pap smears, just too young to have sex! But have the pap smear anyway.

Posted by: Mr T | November 3, 2009 2:03 AM

Desert Son: you're well spoken, as always, even if in this case you were tired and cranky.

Janet Holmes: "Octomom" has a total of 14 kids, all from in-vitro fertilization.

Unless I'm missing something, it's a very strange non sequitur (or backpedaling, depending on your original position) to go from "let's stop stupid people from voting/breeding" to "let's not pay for welfare moms/dads to make unlimited babies".

Don't Panic: no matter how unfair our legal and welfare system, the "unlimited babies" strawman is safely in the realm of the physically impossible. We ought to be very concerned about overpopulation and many other issues, but the wrong way to address them is by making ridiculous claims that can never happen.

Posted by: uncle frogy | November 3, 2009 3:35 AM

'tis himself said
"If there's a subjective voting test instituted, then it becomes very easy to manipulate to ensure that only the right voters can vote."

I thought that was the idea to try to insure that only the "right people" get to vote.

going further in that direction why even have a vote? let us institute a new government that is run only by those who pass qualifying examinations given by those who have already passed and understand what the proper criteria for the test should be.

Posted by: Dianne | November 3, 2009 8:08 AM

Meh, running a government based on a popularity contest is a dumb way of doing things anyway. It's just annoying that the other forms of government are worse.

I agree. Two correlaries:
1. It is not inherently evil to suggest another form of government. If you have a better idea, bring it out and let people examine it for safety and efficacy.
2. Any idea you have for a better form of government is highly likely to actually be a worse form of government. If it doesn't work, get over it and move on.

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | November 3, 2009 8:29 AM

I suspect that there are at least a few people here, who stopped commenting a while ago, who agree with me, but are afraid to say anything for fear of this kind of reaction.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is the knee-jerk Libertarianism I keep bringing up. A number of you have a romanticized notion of civil liberty. You're trying to express it in ideological terms, but it's simply personal preference. As I said, the Europeans seem to handle this sort of system well; we don't, and have never been able to. America has never worked terribly well; it's a collection of good ideas that never really got off the ground. The few advances we've made, such as abolition, suffrage and civil rights, have been won at the cost of tremendous suffering and death - and this is still a nation of abominable imbeciles.

I'm not going to pursue this. You people have your opinions, and I have mine. As we all acknowledge, there's no chance of implementing it, anyway.

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | November 3, 2009 10:39 AM

Why not breed out disgusting bigots like you?

Seriously? That's the best you could do? It isn't even accurate.

It's painfully obvious you have do clue as to what's being discussed here.

Posted by: Eileen | November 3, 2009 10:56 AM

If #19 had substituted "black" for "female", she would've been flamed into a nice little crisp. However, bigotted stupidity already burns.

Posted by: Dwight Gilbert Jones | November 3, 2009 10:58 AM

Let me give you definition of Humanism to work with, PZ, you seem to have trouble moving above the usual trap in the USA and UK of equating it with atheism.

Humanism is an inclusive sensibility for our species, planet and lives.

People's religion or collateral beliefs are their own private matters. If you choose to attack them instead of nationalism, militarism, poverty, sexism and corruption you are certainly no Humanist. At best you are a chest-thumping atheist, trumpeting non-belief as a revelation.

the proper study of Humanists is our species governance. There is nothing as supernatural as nothing, although I do grant that there is a chance to flog books on atheism to novititates while social climbing as a Humanist carpetbagger..

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | November 3, 2009 11:12 AM

My papsmear smear was in reference to the latest Goldacre column. Regular screenings don't catch extra cancers in that agegroup. Evidencebased medicine cuts both ways.

Posted by: Ms. Crazy Pants | November 3, 2009 11:19 AM

I just love how I became viewed as "sexist." When giving commentary on a lecturer, if you feel the need to draw hearts or look cute, you're pretty f*cking dumb in my book. I don't care to be associated with those types of people, and I find it embarrassing to have any single thing in common with them.

Posted by: Ms. Crazy Pants | November 3, 2009 11:33 AM

Oh, and for those that didn't like their options....

____Male
____Female
____Male with brains
____Female with brains

Better?

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | November 3, 2009 12:38 PM

Robert, there's really too much to respond to. A few points -

I don't understand what you mean here; my knowledge of European politics and processes is limited.

To begin with, the Western European countries have proportional representational ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation ), which helps to ensure that the greatest number of people have their interests represented. What they do with it is also relevant; they have a "we're all in this together" attitude that we lack. As a result, their social services are far more comprehensive than ours; housing, education, health care - everything is covered (the levels of coverage vary from country to country, but the overarching theme is constant). This leads me to -

(so now there's potentially some of that dreaded socialism-type stuff creeping into my knee-jerk romanto-Libertarianism;

I am, actually, quite the socialist when it comes to the safety net. I feel very strongly that everyone should be provided for, but that doesn't lead me to conclude that everyone is entitled to an equal voice. Mencken said something along the lines of, "The 100% American is 90% imbecile". In fifty-three years, I haven't seen one scrap of evidence that persuades me he was wrong.

A case could be made that a select group already controls the democratic system (a select group of representatives beholden to monied industrial interests, for example). My concern is that such select-group control systems too easily become oppressive (more oppressive than the limits of more open and available democracies might otherwise exhibit).

Yes, and the people we're discussing are largely responsible for placing that select group into power. Our financial situation, although complex, has its most direct cause the behavior of the criminals and lunatics the fundies have spent the past thirty years voting into office. We aren't coming back from this; America is too badly broken, and cannot be repaired. Due to the interconnected nature of the global economy, as we go down, we'll be taking everyone else down with us. We're facing the end, within a few years, of our global civilization - quite possibly of our species. These people for whom you don't want to give up hope - they did it, Robert. In the end, they proved to be far more toxic to humanity than the Islamic terrorists have ever been.

I have a very low opinion of humanity, but I think, if we had a government elected by people like the Pharyngulites, rather than by people like Pat Robertson and Dr. Dobson, we'd at least have a fighting chance. To insist, for nostalgic reasons (and that really is all it amounts to), that everyone's right to vote is sacrosanct, is childish and self-destructive. As Dianne said above (although I realize she was disagreeing with me), "It is not inherently evil to suggest another form of government... If it doesn't work, get over it and move on."

As far as eugenics is concerned - I will say this one more time - it isn't what I was arguing for. Very early on, a couple of offhand remarks were made (one by me) about restricting breeding as well as voting rights, and that was it - I had to spend the rest of the thread defending myself as though I were arguing for something I wasn't. All of these empirically-oriented science people simply stopped listening, and started shooting from the hip. Really, you people can be just as bad as the fundies - just as guilty of attachment and impassioned reasoning.

For the record - I don't think selective breeding, coupled with genetic manipulation, done in order to enhance quality of life (let's avoid the loaded term "eugenics"), is a bad idea. The concept was employed by some bad characters; so was atheism, but we get our collective knickers in a twist whenever a fundie hurls that at us like a weapon - because it isn't relevant.

If anyone says anything to me about eugenics or restricted breeding again, I won't answer. I really don't want to continue this discussion as it is.

Posted by: Mr T | November 3, 2009 1:51 PM

I have a very low opinion of humanity, but I think, if we had a government elected by people like the Pharyngulites, rather than by people like Pat Robertson and Dr. Dobson, we'd at least have a fighting chance.

Really, you people can be just as bad as the fundies - just as guilty of attachment and impassioned reasoning.

Thanks for refuting yourself, shithead. Be more careful next time: you obviously haven't excised some of your own stupid, so we should deny you voting rights, along with anything else we superior beings deem to be a rational course of action for creating our utopian dreamland.

Posted by: Desert Son | November 3, 2009 2:32 PM

Jeff Eyges,

Thanks for the link to proportional representation. I don't have time to look over it just now, but I'll take a gander later. It's a term I've never heard before.

Mencken said something along the lines of, "The 100% American is 90% imbecile".

One of the points I was trying to make, although I don't think I've been doing a very good job of it, is that is actually a reason to have equal voice, if for no other reason than at some point, I'm 90% imbecile. Anyone might be, at some point, 90% imbecile. That means that I wouldn't get to vote, and I feel I deserve to be able to vote. I feel I deserve to be able to vote even when I'm 90% imbecile, in the hopes that I will be able to exercise 10% non-imbecile, or work on changing the ratio to decrease the imbecile quotient. I also don't think imbecile is a static or permanent condition, except perhaps in the case of certain brain damage where there is no way to regenerate neural pathways or for neural pathways to adjust.

To insist, for nostalgic reasons (and that really is all it amounts to), that everyone's right to vote is sacrosanct, is childish and self-destructive. As Dianne said above (although I realize she was disagreeing with me), "It is not inherently evil to suggest another form of government... If it doesn't work, get over it and move on."

I disagree that all it really amounts to is nostalgia. As I mentioned, I think that a social ideal can be something we can work for even if we don't ever achieve it, and it can still be worth something. I'm not sure how that makes it nostalgia, except to say that similar ideas have been suggested in the past.

If I have implied that your attempts to suggest another form of government are inherently evil attempts, then I apologize, as that was not my intention. My aim was to try and recognize the suggestion, and then make a case for why I thought it wasn't a good suggestion.

Really, you people can be just as bad as the fundies - just as guilty of attachment and impassioned reasoning.

Again, I thought what I had tried to do in my post was, instead of refuting the idea of idealism and "knee-jerk Libertarianism," I would try to own those things and see if I could make a case for transforming them into something positive. I also add that I don't seem to have made my point that I acknowledge that there's damage done by those who use their available, protected voice to tear down the institution established to safeguard the available voice.

I'm not convinced, however, that just because your case for restricted voting hasn't convinced me to change my view, then that automatically makes me intractable.

I freely admit to impassioned reasoning from time to time. I wouldn't be much of a human being if my affect didn't play some role in my interaction.

In fifty-three years, I haven't seen one scrap of evidence that persuades me he was wrong.

We aren't coming back from this; America is too badly broken, and cannot be repaired.

We're facing the end, within a few years, of our global civilization - quite possibly of our species.

I have a very low opinion of humanity

Hmmmm. Ok. I think this is where we part ways. I disagree with those sentiments, but regardless, as an idealist, even if the end of the U.S. and humanity isn't all that far off, I still think there are principles worth struggling for, right to the end. If that's a flaw in my character, then it's one that I do want to own; I have yet to encounter a convincing argument against it.

Since I haven't made a very good case, I'll withdraw, take a look at proportional representation, and recommend an article I just looked at recently for some further thoughts on societal contribution, democracy and internal threats to it, and people's voice/participation in those factors:

Dolby, N. (2003). Popular culture and democratic practice. Harvard Educational Review, 73 (3), pp. 258-284.

Thanks for the discussion.

No kings,

Robert, knee-jerk Lawbertarian

Posted by: woodsong | November 3, 2009 2:49 PM

I've only just started reading the comments here, but I have to agree with KemaTheAtheist. I wouldn't completely ban anyone from breeding, but I do think that if a person receives public assistance of ANY sort, they should not be permitted to have more than 2 kids. I don't think that's being unreasonable.

Posted by: R-Tam | November 3, 2009 4:15 PM

Dear Ms. Crazypants.

WHAT IS THIS, I DON'T EVEN

Achem.

You know that guy? That guy who makes inappropriatly sexist and/or racist comments or "jokes", who, when called on it, furiously backpedals or worse, calls you oversensitive?

That's you.

What you said was so fucking sexist that multiple people felt the need to call you out. You can't brush this off with a "Me? Sexist? Goodness me, how ridiculous." You offer no rebuttals, no "I didn't mean it that way", nothing. Just your assurance that, after having said something sexist, you're not actually sexist. Right.

Let's examine your defense.

I don't care to be associated with those types of people, and I find it embarrassing to have any single thing in common with them.

Funny how it's only ever female stupidity that reflects poorly on a whole gender. You know, this is where we get such lovely compliments like "You're not like other women!" It's also the same mentality that gave us the - now thankfully retired - expression "A credit to hir race"

Of course, it's not stupidity that concerns you, is it? The actual joke of these papers was the jesus-humping idiocy, which is what most people here mocked. What's it about for you?

if you feel the need to draw hearts or look cute, you're pretty f*cking dumb in my book.

Yes. They were girly girls who were being frivolously girly. THE HORROR!

Granted, you're not the only one to make fun of the scribbles. I found them pretty funny myself. But it wasn't the thing that made these letters a target for mockery and contempt. Except for you, it did.

Honestly, while trying to deflect accusations of mysoginy it is generally not a good idea to show disgust for femininity.

Do you think I'm putting words in your mouth? I'm not. I'm articulating what you're subconciously thinking, but have never bothered to take a closer look at.

No, I don't think you're a hardcore mysoginist, thinking women dumb whores and bitches. You're not devout, so to speak. You're like one of the luke-warm Christians who believe, kinda, sorta, but don't really go to church. Who think God exists, but never examined why they believe that.

You know what I'm getting at, right? You hate it so much to have the same gender as the girl who filled out that paper. Here's another thing in common you can resent: you have the same mentality when it comes to gender.

But, you know, I can understand where you're coming from. See if this thought process is familiar to you.

1. I am a good person.
2. A part of being a good person is not to be sexist.
3. People are accusing me of being sexist.
4. Being sexist would make me a not-good person.
5. But I am a good person.
6. Therefore, these people are wrong.

To admit otherwise might destroy your sense of self. But you know what? Suck it up. I don't tolerate this self-delusion when it comes to religion, and I sure as hell don't tolerate it when it comes to gender.

You are a sexist. You are also a racist. An ableist. A classist. Or really any other kind of -ist there is. How couldn't you be? You grew up in a society steeped in those -isms. We all are sexist, and racist, and ableist.

Being sexist doesn't make anyone a bad person. It's how you react to having your sexism called out that shows what kind of person you are.

You can either go "LA DEE DAH, I can't heeeeeear you!" and continue with your merry sexist ways.

Or you can listen. Think. Examine your prejudices and hopefully get rid of them. Overcome the sexism.

Sexism is insidious. It lurks in the dark subconcious corners of our minds. Telling yourself you're not sexist isn't going to make it go away (Witness Stephen Colbert being "colorblind"). You have to drag it, kicking and screaming, out of the dark into the open, where one must beat it to death with a blunt object.

So you're sexist. The question is: What are you going to do about it?

Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 3, 2009 4:45 PM

Woodsong, what about people who were healthy when they began their family and then became ill, or suffered the death of the financially supporting spouse? Should their families be put in foster care? Is foster care a positive thing for the kids? Once their born it's the children's lives that matter.

I don't think any cap on children is a good idea other than an invouluntary one because of the simple fact that it increases infantacide. While I am pro-choice, I am not pro starving your second female baby or selling her as a sex slave or child wife to a rural area... both problems encountered in China that I doubt seriously we could avoid here.

I think you've been overconvinced of the wealfare mother popping out babies for money... but most of them are on TV. Quite often a person with that mentality ends up having the childeren taken simply because the chidren are being neglected and abused. It would be nice if there was a simple law that could be passed that would actually force people to be good and responsible parents and not to have problems and not to go insane or get diabeties or have heart attacks or become addicted to a substance or have an accident that leaves them brain damaged or or or... it would really be nice.

The thing that annoys me about these discussions, and the reason I reacted the way I did to Jeff is that like the ideals of anarchy these arguments retreat more and more into the non-material. They really apply to maybe 500 to 1000 people (yes I pulled that number out of my rear, but I'd bet if you sorted the statistics that's about what you'd end up with once the quibbling over particulars was done) in real and pragmatic terms. It's silly because they have so little relationship to the real gritty functioning world. It would only be nice if you ignore the consequences and the cost of employing such a measure.

From the countries that have employed it, it doesn't look remotely like a good idea.

Also... what qualifes as assistence? For instance, seniors who are on medicare who assume the parental role of their grandchildren? Now those damned brats would be sucking off the government teet too.

Yeah, it's so easy as long as it's "those people" but I'm a humanist. I don't believe in gods, but I do believe in looking after the people in one's society.

Sorry if that's not your bag.

Posted by: Mr T | November 3, 2009 5:01 PM

woodsong:
No, those aren't good enough reasons for me. In my opinion, there are much more ethical ways of dealing with overpopulation.
You're essentially saying that it's more moral for us to let people starve, go homeless, get no emergency medical services, and apparently have no access to any kind of public assistance, than for others to pay higher taxes.

This is "moral" because the couple has had more than two children? It's okay if your money goes to two children in a poor family, but all three children in another poor family will get never get any help? Or do you mean only the first two in any family could ever be helped by the government? Either way, did those kids themselves do anything to deserve this treatment? If their parents are stupid, irresponsible, criminals, whatever, should that change in any way whether or not we help the kids? If those kids run away from home, will they be denied government assistance simply because they happened to come from too large a family?

Posted by: Mr T | November 3, 2009 5:32 PM

woodsong:
Sorry, I had to cut my last comment a bit short. I'm back. Now, for your second attempt at a rationalization:

I wouldn't go so far as to punish someone for having additional kids, I just think that society should not give them any additional assistance for the extra family members, and that Social Services should keep an eye on things. If the parents can't keep their kids healthy and happy, let someone else adopt them...

Posted by: not a gator | November 3, 2009 5:50 PM

@42

Don't be ridiculous ... these restrictions already exist ... for those planning to adopt.

If you choose to have children, you're suspect. (Single women at the sperm bank, gay couples, etc.) If you get drunk one night & a female gets knocked up, you have society's sympathies (including some very sympathetic tax breaks).

Seems to indicate a general a lack of enthusiasm about the prospect of more little rotters, to me.

Posted by: Desert Son | November 3, 2009 10:24 PM

Mr T,

Jeff Eyges took his ball and went home. He must be a really, super-duper smart troll.

To be fair, I also indicated I was withdrawing from the thread, as I felt I'd run out of things to contribute. Also, having seen Jeff Eyges post around Pharyngula, I'm not sure he's a troll, at least not how I understand the word.

I disagree with Jeff on the issue of voter voice in a democracy, and disagree strongly, but I think he was trying to lay out a case, and I was trying to lay out a case, and others were trying to lay out cases, and respond to points, and so forth. I never felt like he was baiting or just there to shit on the rug and then run out the door (for lack of a better way to describe trolling).

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: John Scanlon FCD | November 4, 2009 1:36 AM

There are some oddly emotional reactions in this thread, some of them look way out of proportion. A few things that didn't come up in the discussion, but seem relevant with regard to the right to vote (in the USA particularly, a foreign country to many of us here):

Nobody is born able to vote, drive, or have babies. ('That baby is not a voter, it's a child of voting parents')

In order to become a US citizen without the automatic entitlement of having been born there or having a citizen parent, isn't there some kind of testing procedure where one is supposed to have some understanding of the Constitution and stuff like that? I saw it on The Simpsons, a source possibly better than Wikipedia ;)

As far as I'm aware, similar tests of competence and legal responsibility are applied for things like getting a driving license, buying a gun, practicing surgery, prescribing medication, etc. L-wordists aside, are these widely considered to be intolerable limitations on basic human/civil rights?

In some countries (Australia at least) being convicted or imprisoned does not negate the right (nay, obligation) to vote. It is often otherwise in the US - your right to vote can be stripped for being caught smoking a bit of pot, or some such victimless, non-violent, non-political 'crime'? (or something really nasty, of course)

OK, if voting is a right that "cannot be denied on grounds of race or color, sex or age for citizens eighteen years or older", that leaves a lot of room for other tests, some of which are currently imposed by law in the individual states. To talk about them hypothetically in either a serious or humorous manner is not the same as being a bigot, I think.