Pharyngula

Posted by: badgersdaughter | May 26, 2011 8:55 AM

Whatever shall we do with diabetic black lesbian poets in your world?

Allow the market to determine their value, naturally. What did you expect? After all, if they were worth something to someone somewhere, they would be self-supporting, like other humans who are healthy young attractive white hetero male stockbrokers.

Posted by: Lotharloo | May 26, 2011 8:57 AM

I think that the state has no right to impose taxes on citizens.

Well, go and live in an isolated island. Then you don't have to pay any taxes. Although, I suspect you won't be able to make much money or do grocery shopping either.

But I suspect you want farmers to make you food, construction builders to build you houses, and cops to protect you. I wonder how long does it take for you to figure out that you actually have to pay taxes.

Posted by: tpagester | May 26, 2011 8:58 AM

Either a Concern Troll or just a really powerful self-serving bias.

Posted by: Victor | May 26, 2011 8:59 AM

I think that abortion is wrong, that homosexuality is wrong and that feminism is one of the biggest threats to society

Posted by: Enzyme | May 26, 2011 9:00 AM

And there was me thinking that Ayn Rand was mainly adored by Americans...

Posted by: maarten.jan | May 26, 2011 9:01 AM

I guess he has to do something about his critical thinking skills. The pieces in his letter just don't add up. Being against women, homosexuals and abortion, while claiming to want maximal freedom for everyone? Equating evolution to atheism? What a weird guy...

Posted by: Doug Little | May 26, 2011 9:06 AM

WTF!?

Compartmentalization in its severest form.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 26, 2011 9:07 AM

But I suspect you want farmers to make you food, construction builders to build you houses, and cops to protect you. I wonder how long does it take for you to figure out that you actually have to pay taxes.

hence my offer for him to switch places with my boyfriend. either he'll learn how much of a spoiled little brat he is, or he'll fucking love it here (and at least, being here he won't ruin my home-country with his asshattitude)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 26, 2011 9:08 AM

it seems that atheists are generally on the left side of the political spectrum.

Reality has a liberal bias

Posted by: badgersdaughter | May 26, 2011 9:09 AM

In recent times I considered the question if it's not better for me to just start believing in God and the bible since I have so much in common with Conservative christians.

Well. OK, fellow atheist from Germany, my father, a radical conservative of the kind who admired Richard Nixon, made a lifelong practice of fitting in among churchgoers because he felt it was the correct thing to do when you lived in a religious society. Wear the same face paint as the natives, you know. And in the fifties and for a long time afterward, it was correct and reasonable to do so.

He dissembled so well that when he was fifty, it was impossible to tell whether he was actually a believer or not. I suspect not. When he found out I was an atheist, in my mid 30s, he told me I was stupid and I'd get in trouble, not that I was going against God and I'd wind up in Hell.

So you're a conservative. I'm curious why you picked Christianity, though. Wouldn't your conservatism be the same no matter what religion its adherents were? Isn't worship of the transcendent ability of market forces to right all wrongs enough religion for you already?

Posted by: Deen | May 26, 2011 9:13 AM

I think that everything should be privatized in order to increase individual freedom.

Posted by: BO_Bill | May 26, 2011 9:14 AM

In the Logical world, the last thing a disability-proponent would advocate is the Theory of Evolution.

Posted by: uri | May 26, 2011 9:17 AM

PZ is onto something, I think, with this series of posts. My experience also indicates that atheists tend to also be be liberals (in the Jeffersonian sense).

But I wonder why I have not met more people like PZ's German correspondent?

The existence of politically progressive religious sects, and many more politically liberal people who flout the repressive prohibitions and commandments of whatever faith they profess, indicates that belief in the supernatural does not prevent one from being liberal.

Why, then, would disbelief dispose a person towards liberal politics?

Why do expect that belief, or disbelief, would have ANYTHING to do with a persons political orientation?

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 26, 2011 9:19 AM

In the Logical world, the last thing a disability-proponent would advocate is the Theory of Evolution.

Posted by: dinkum | May 26, 2011 9:21 AM

In recent times I considered the question if it's not better for me to just start believing in God and the bible since I have so much in common with Conservative christians.

Because belief wired to a light switch is Belief You Can Trust.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | May 26, 2011 9:22 AM

While professor Myers is on the subject of received emails...

Is there any chance of a short article about an unknown and next to irrelevant atheist organization being published here?
We are trying to get some recognition from foreign atheist organizations and/or know individuals (Yeah, I'm sucking up now. Is it working?)

We want it to be known that there are atheist in Croatia and we think that it would be great if we introduced ourselves on a known atheist's blog.

And no, it wouldn't be a post for "I get email" and Comic Sans. I hope.

Posted by: Pyrion | May 26, 2011 9:24 AM

I am living in germany too. It's true that we are probably paying more taxes than americans (not sure, maybe an expert can tell), but it's put to good use. Compared to most other countries we are living in paradise here. Corruption is low, health standard is high and almost nobody carries guns. I like it.

Posted by: Birger Johansson | May 26, 2011 9:25 AM

There are conservatives and there are CONSERVATIVES(TM). The variant we have in Sweden is pretty benign, they participate in Gay Pride and have plenty of atheists.
While I do not share their ideology, they are a million miles from the robber apologists you have in 'Merica, Canada and Britain.

For instance, during the Swedish banking crisis in 92, the conservative-led coalition practically socialised the banks, and eventually got back 75% of the money invested in the bank rescue action.
This is because they are pragmatic, reasonally honest and embedded in a society whose values are genrated by what you would call "the middle class" (we do not use that term, since the wealth is distributed in a quite equal manner, at least by Merican standards).

I recall that during the US banking crisis and various options were discussed, Obama said that "this is not Sweden", meaning he had no intention of doing anything other than save the banks and their shareholders.
As we can see now, the mortgage-laden ordinary people will be as fucked by the Democrats as by the Thuglicans (both parties are dominated by the wealthiest 1%).
The Democrats have a better vocabulary and are nicer to minorities but from the perspective of Yale, not from the perspective of those who actually can get unemployed.

I would sooner be ruled by an absolute majority of Swedish conservatives than by the pathetic faux-progressive Republican Lite called "Democrats".

Posted by: rturpin | May 26, 2011 9:26 AM

In recent times I considered the question if it's not better for me to just start believing in God and the bible since I have so much in common with Conservative christians.

That's a fair description of how group-think works. There's no point in arguing with it, because it sets a purpose for argument, group solidarity, that is quite orthogonal to rational argument. If the letter writer can seriously entertain belief on this ground, he will make a fine Christian. And he will make a poor scientist. He should both convert and give up his science studies.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE | May 26, 2011 9:30 AM

I note that he says "I think..." rather than "I believe..." Trying to imply there's some kind of reasoning behind the "homosexuality is wrong" assertion. But you only get points for showing your work. Why is homosexuality wrong? Why is feminism a big threat to society? It's almost as if he thinks a little invisible man is telling him these things or something...

Posted by: Snikkers | May 26, 2011 9:31 AM

Two things: If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck...

Secondly: what in the hell is a 'disability-proponent'? Define, please.

Posted by: Deen | May 26, 2011 9:36 AM

@uri:

Why do expect that belief, or disbelief, would have ANYTHING to do with a persons political orientation?

Which makes me wonder what it says about our German friend that he seeks out an figure of authority (when it comes to atheism) to ask what he should do...

Posted by: kris.ingstrup | May 26, 2011 9:38 AM

Wow. I was about to go on a rant about this- but then I remembered I need to get back to the kitchen before my husband beats me for having ideas.
Stupid effing trolls...

Posted by: evilDoug | May 26, 2011 9:41 AM

In recent times I considered the question if it's not better for me to just start believing in God and the bible since I have so much in common with Conservative christians.

Believing in things that are convenient but not true certainly fits in well with religion and conservatism.

Posted by: airbagmoments | May 26, 2011 9:45 AM

The letter definitely smells like POE.

Nevertheless all this wholesale adoption of sister causes by PZ is, I think, a bad idea at best and messianic at worst.

Because at heart is this proposition by PZ: "one cannot be a rational, intelligent human being and contributing member of society and hold the conservative views you do."

As a liberal I actually agree with that sentiment...to an extent. But contained within it is a more worrisome thought: that if you are a rationalist you will inevitably come to agree with PZ's politics through a logical, empirical process or else be mistaken in thought.

Is this interpretation wrong?

Posted by: Deen | May 26, 2011 9:47 AM

@KOPD:

When I talk about right or wrong, I'm talking about moral judgments based on minimizing harm.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE | May 26, 2011 9:53 AM

@KOPD:
As I read the email, I kept wanting to say "citation needed".

It's more like "show your work" - in the case of moral arguments, "citation needed" could amount to an appeal to higher authority.

Posted by: Eric K | May 26, 2011 9:54 AM

OK, am I the only one that thinks this troll is trying to play "atheist Hitler" to make a point? If one believes that Hitler was atheist, as many Christianists claim, then this sounds a lot like him.

Posted by: graham martin-royle | May 26, 2011 9:54 AM

I furthermore believe that reverese racism (things like affirmative action) against Whites is actually worse than White-on-Black racism.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/trigger_happy.php

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | May 26, 2011 9:59 AM

Why do expect that belief, or disbelief, would have ANYTHING to do with a persons political orientation?

Posted by: jk.fausnight | May 26, 2011 10:06 AM

The writer is confused: you can't simply choose to believe in God and Christianity. You either believe it or not. I could no more believe in either God or Christianity any more than I could make myself believe in the Easter Bunny. It is just too preposterous.

Posted by: havlak | May 26, 2011 10:09 AM

This German fellow might be reachable, if he can realize how self-serving his views are and how unlikely to convince anyone not sharing his educated white male privileges.

There's much to be said for fiscal conservatives (of the honest kind we're currently lacking). Hard-nosed accounting can help a great deal in trimming budgets, given a willingness to look at the data and confess that, for example, spending on women's health (including both preventing unwanted pregnancies and nurturing planned ones) saves money in the long run, from prevention of abortions, unwanted children, and avoidable harm to infants.

Our knee-jerk conservative German should do the hard work of rebuilding his opinions on some basis of reality. It's not enough to reject imaginary gods. He has to look at the world with disinterested eyes, asking what kind of society treats everyone like they're fully human?

(And why should his wallet be more sacred than someone else's bedroom?)

Posted by: ghc.arys | May 26, 2011 10:12 AM

Watch out for cultural differences.

"It seems to me that atheism goes hand in hand with progressivism, which is not my thing..."

This may be true in the US, here in Western Europe it is not so outspoken.

So many of the privileged white lucky ones, like me, are atheists. For instance, in educated (white) circles in Belgium, atheism is even the prevalent world view.

Moreover, I have to be a bit careful here as I am not a political expert, I think that 'Progressive' is much more 'to the left' than in the US. Your democrats seem to promote views comparable to our right wing.

However, the views expressed in the letter, correspond very much to what is called the 'far right' here and not 'conservatism'. And I think it is safe to say that the European far right is generally not religious.

Posted by: yvi | May 26, 2011 10:15 AM

In terms of German politics, this guy isn't "conservative" or "right-wing", by the way, he'd count as "far-right". I can't even come up with a party agreeing with his points without going into neo-Nazi territory.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 26, 2011 10:19 AM

contained within it is a more worrisome thought: that if you are a rationalist you will inevitably come to agree with PZ's politics through a logical, empirical process or else be mistaken in thought. Is this interpretation wrong?

Can you propose an argument that’s based on rational inquiry and logical reasoning that says that homosexuality is wrong, feminism is destroying society, racism by blacks against whites is a bigger problem than its converse, and Alan Greenspan’s economic policies will succeed, someday, despite its decades-long track record of failure?

I can’t. But maybe your imagination is better than mine.

Imagine what our politics would be like if there was widespread agreement that equality for women, POC, disabled people, LGBT folks, etc. was a goal worth working towards and we just squabbled about HOW to do it. Imagine if instead of having one major faction in our politics that regards the Earth as temporary stopping point on the way to paradise, all major parties agreed that taking care of the Earth and ensuring sustainability is a worthwhile goal, and the arguments were about which methods would best achieve that goal.

There’s still plenty of room for disagreement there. I don’t think you need to fear the atheist thought police.

Our society is in transition right now. There’s a basic disagreement about which goals are worth pursuing, on a collective level. Widespread agreement on common goals is not tantamount to enforcing “correct thought” or anything like that.

Posted by: Dianne | May 26, 2011 10:24 AM

Ich frage mich ob er wirklich Deutsch ist. Vielleicht ist er Ami der in Deutschland aufgewachsen an eine Militärbasis? Das heiste, viellicht wohnt er technisch in Deutschland aber kulturalisch in denn USA.(Enschuldigen Sie, bitte, meine schlechte Deutsch: ich bin auch Amerikanerin und so kann keine Fremdsprache.)

Posted by: Twiddle | May 26, 2011 10:33 AM

"reverse racism" - wtf? Racism is racism...

Posted by: Steven Mading | May 26, 2011 10:39 AM

There's no reason to be surprised that such people as this German e-mailer exist, unless you keep insisting on operating on an incorrect definition of "atheist" that brings in other attributes beyond "doesn't believe in god". (So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that PZ finds this so hard to understand.)

There is a correlation between atheism and liberalism. PZ keeps making the mistake of presuming this is a causal relationship - that atheism causes liberalism. I think it's a mistake to fail to consider that what's going on is that both of these are effects of a third unmentioned cause: that cause being a rational anti-faith mindset.

A rational anti-faith attitude causes atheism, and a rational anti-faith attitude also causes liberalism. But these two effects don't have a cause-effect relationship between *each other*. There are other ways to become an atheist other than rational ones. A person who concludes that they don't believe religion doesn't necessarily get there rationally. Some do - in fact I'd hazard a guess that most do - but there's nothing preventing someone from coming to that position for an irrational reason (for example, "I don't like god therefore he can't exist".)

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | May 26, 2011 10:41 AM

"reverse racism" - wtf? Racism is racism...

Like Colbert said, it's "reverse racism" because it's the opposite of the kind of racism you're supposed to have.

Posted by: holyspiritdenier | May 26, 2011 10:44 AM

PZ, you might want to show more appreciation and respect towards the productive white conservative business men in your state who pay the bulk of the taxes which provide you with your livelihood. They don't have to live in Minnesota and tolerate supporting you. They could take their business skills to places which offer to treat them better.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 26, 2011 10:46 AM

PZ, you might want to show more appreciation and respect towards the productive white conservative business men in your state who pay the bulk of the taxes which provide you with your livelihood. They don't have to live in Minnesota and tolerate supporting you. They could take their business skills to places which offer to treat them better.

sigh

Posted by: Aquaria | May 26, 2011 10:47 AM

Even if, for the record, I am at least as left-leaning as Obama.

You call that left-leaning? If you're as left leaning as Obama, then you're a center-right corporatist authoritarian.

That's not being left-leaning, except in bizarro Republican right-wing fuckface world.

It's so terrifying when Americans don't get what left-leaning, never mind leftist, actually is in something called reality. Brayton makes this mistake all the time, labeling people like Chris Matthews as the left and otherwise attributing things to left that are actually being done by corporatist slimeballs or sniveling scumbag moderates.

Sorry for the rant, but this is one of my big pet peeves.

Posted by: raven | May 26, 2011 10:50 AM

If the guy is a "conservative" and has a toggle switch for religion, the solution is obvious.

He should let the Invisible hand of the market decide for him which cult to join.

Which cult offers the better deal?

Mormons. You become a minor god when dead with your own planet and a fleet of nameless goddesses. You spend eternity fucking and they spend eternity pumping our spirit babies.

Scientology. You become a master of MEST, matter, energy, space, and time. A major god capable of creating whole universes.

Libertarian. You can keep as much loot as you can gather any way you can. Nowhere near godlike status but you don't have to die first. There is a slight risk of prosecution but you would do more jail time in reality for jaywalking.

Prosperity xian gospels. Shop around for the one that promises the most money with the least effort. Join it. Arrange for the head to disappear and take it over. Prophet and Profit.

Heavens Gate. You get to join super advanced beings on a flying saucer out around Jupiter. There isn't much money in this one but you should be able to use the flying saucer to extort money from earthlings or hire it out to Blackwater in Dubai for mercenary duties.

???? Start your own cult and cash in. It isn't hard. Study David Koresh, L.R. Hubbard, and Joseph Smith for pointers on what and what not to do. For starters, don't get in shootouts with groups of people better armed than you.

Posted by: holyspiritdenier | May 26, 2011 10:56 AM

@Lotharloo:

>Well, go and live in an isolated island. Then you don't have to pay any taxes. Although, I suspect you won't be able to make much money or do grocery shopping either.

Productive people don't have to put up with abusive, "progressive" governments in the modern world. Ayn Rand, despite her nuttiness, did identify a practical strategy for people who want to escape the left's hostility and threat of rapine: Move yourself and your fortune to a place which treats you better. Even Chinese millionaires have figured this out, and I don't think they got the idea from reading a Chinese translation of Atlas Shrugged:

Rich Chinese consider leaving China
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8466160/Rich-Chinese-consider-leaving-China.html

Posted by: pandurata | May 26, 2011 11:00 AM

Oh, for crying out loud...

With you on the first paragraph. Being an atheist from Germany who frequents this blog (among others) for her on-average-twice-daily dose of lurking, I have found this site to be a great place to let me see the godless side of the US. Which is quite a contrast to my previous experiences in the States.

As for the rest... I'm lost for words...

I guess I'll just take my car now on the paid-for-and-maintained-by-taxes autobahn to drive home at 200+km/h (does loving to drive fast as a woman also fall under the "feminist threat to society" category?) all the while thinking how grateful I am to previous generations of feminists whose activism gave me the option of an abortion should I ever need it. Then I'll meet up with a friend who gave me the honor of asking me to photograph her recent wedding to her long-time girlfriend.

Posted by: Steven Mading | May 26, 2011 11:00 AM

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 26, 2011 10:40 AM While it IS possible to be atheist AND conservative (`a la Robert Price and Michael Shermer), it is NOT possible, as PZ points out, to hold rational views that deny rights to women and gays or declares that reverse racism is worse than the interracial variety

No sorry, it is possible. It's cognitive dissonance and irrational but it is possible to lack any belief in god(s) and still be a total dick.

Correct. It's an important differentiation to make. A common error religious people keep making in their arguments is to say something along the lines of, "Of course belief X is compatible with belief Y - see how many people there are who hold both beliefs?" They don't get the difference between "belief X is compatible with belief Y, in the sense that logic does not make them mutually exclusive." versus "belief X is compatible with belief Y, in the sense that the same human brain can contain both beliefs."

The human brain does not have a foolproof mechanism for kicking out incompatible beliefs. The ability to hold contradictory beliefs is one of the big flaws in the human brain.

People are often unclear what they meant by beliefs being "compatible". - they mean "can coexist in a human" and we think it means "are logically consistent".

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | May 26, 2011 11:02 AM

holyspiritdenier:

Productive people don't have to put up with abusive, "progressive" governments in the modern world.

Ayn Rand, despite her nuttiness, did identify a practical strategy for people who want to escape the left's hostility and threat of rapine:

Which threat is that, exactly? And which "left?"

Posted by: Rasmus | May 26, 2011 11:04 AM

BO_Bill: Solved the is-ought problem before breakfast and forgot to post the details?

Posted by: bananacat | May 26, 2011 11:06 AM

He wants to increase individual freedom, but take away the freedom to have a same-sex partner or to remove an unwanted embryo from your body. What kind of logic is this guy using? In what world does this make any sense? It's almost like he wants the freedom to take away other people's freedoms.

Posted by: Jolo5309 | May 26, 2011 11:09 AM

Dear German Dude, like you, I am a conservative atheist except we have some small differences...

If someone is gay, it is their business not yours, it ain't wrong because you don't like it. It is also not the business of the state.

If a woman decides to have an abortion, it ain't your business, it is also not the business of the state to tell her no either.

I have no response to feminism as the biggest threat to society because well, I don't understand what you are talking about. I see many more things that are threats to society than whether woman are treated equally (that goes for blacks, Italians, Native Americans or any other group). I think you should worry more about the environment, how many kids the neighbourhood priest has raped or pretty much anything else instead of whether women get treated like people too.

As for taxes, well we pay taxes to lower our cost of footing the whole bill for things like roads, police, health care and firefighters. How would you feel about having to negotiate the cost of paying firefighters while your house is on fire?

I am more of a fiscal conservative (pay your fucking bills!) and a social liberal (it's your fucking life, don't expect me to tell you what to do!) than a real conservative though.

To sum it up, homosexuality is not wrong, abortion is not wrong, feminism is not wrong, taxes are not wrong. You, German dude, are wrong.

Posted by: TheBatons | May 26, 2011 11:13 AM

#36
@Birger Johansson

You couldn't be more wrong.

In Sweden, we have privatized a lot of things for
no reason. Newly privatized schools are
incompetent and treat education second to their
profit. We have lowered the taxes for the rich. We have a regime that doesn't care about the record-breaking unemployment figures. They kick on the underpriviledged and people with immigrant
backgrounds.

They have cut education, elderly healthcare,
international aid, the culture department,
environment etc.

The regime's own accountants critizised their own Finance Minister for not getting access to the data! This indicates they're hiding a
deficit and they are fudging the data.

Womens rights have gotten worse in Sweden, and
equal rights in general. Child poverty is rising for the first time in a decade. Disabled people
are forced to go search for jobs they aren't
capable of doing.

Another thing that I would assume is interesting for people in this blog is also the fact that the Swedish government has been pouring billions of kronor into something called "job coaches", which were supposed to help unemployed people get back into work. It was a complete failure. Among the job coaches were convicted fraudsters, crystal therapists, shamans and sect leaders.

Oh! And we also have troops in Afghanistan now! Yay? The military involved has said on a TV interview that they don't count the amount of Afghans they kill.

The Swedish conservatives, Moderaterna, have Karl Rove on their paycheck;
"His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional, and gubernatorial
candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden"
-Rove's own website (www.rove.com/bio)

Either you're incredibly ingorant about what is actually going on in Sweden, Birger, or you have a lot in common with the German e-mailer, because the Swedish regime ARE robber apologists.

I'm sorry to all you nice people if I'm ranting
here, but I hope you understand that I must
respond to this nonsense since I'm a Swede myself.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | May 26, 2011 11:15 AM

holyspiritdenier:

PZ, you might want to show more appreciation and respect towards the productive white conservative business men in your state who pay the bulk of the taxes which provide you with your livelihood. They don't have to live in Minnesota and tolerate supporting you.

Or: PZ, you might want to show more appreciation and respect towards the assholes who are trying to fuck up society for their own gain, and who avoid the bulk of their taxes by leveraging their economic clout to shirk their share of the cost of maintaining a stable and civil society, and who desire to cut funding for you and all education in their rapacious appetite for extending their own wealth at the cost of others.

In the long run, PZ, you are an ungrateful wretch. After all, those poor wealthy white businessmen only want a greater share of the wealth at the expense of all others. That's their contribution to society, their burden, their sacrifice.

They could take their business skills to places which offer to treat them better.

Cool. I hope they do. That would open up some business opportunities in Minnesota, which I could then fill. I've been thinking of moving from Ohio soon, and Minnesota doesn't look too bad.

Posted by: Mr.Kosta | May 26, 2011 11:16 AM

This is the worst case of "I'm an atheist, but..." that I've seen in a very, VERY long while.

I mean, homosexuality wrong? Feminism a threat? Racism against whites being worse, for fuck's sake, WORSE than racism against minorities? If this guy is really an atheist, it proves that you don't have to believe in a deity in order to be a total moron.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 26, 2011 11:17 AM

PZ, you might want to show more appreciation and respect towards the productive white conservative business men in your state who pay the bulk of the taxes which provide you with your livelihood.

LOL. Got some numbers to back that assertion up?

Posted by: TheBatons | May 26, 2011 11:19 AM

wow, I don't know why the paragraphs are so messed up in my comment. Sorry about that.

Posted by: Vene | May 26, 2011 11:20 AM

"For example, I think that abortion is wrong, that homosexuality is wrong and that feminism is one of the biggest threats to society."
"I think that everything should be privatized in order to increase individual freedom. "
lol

Oh, and something I have long wondered, what is the libertarian alternative to a state/federal highway system? Do they really think that having privatized roads is going to be of benefit? As of this moment, I can only assume they are stupid gits who have not thought their political/philosophical stance through very well.

Posted by: oihorse | May 26, 2011 11:21 AM

Gotta be a Poe. No human can truly hold onto such cognitive dissonance and remain sane.

Posted by: skeptifem | May 26, 2011 11:21 AM

I watched a youtube recently that is very relevant. It is about how some atheist folks use "freedom" and "liberty" to fill the slot "god" usually would in fundamentalist arguments about morality. The idea is that even with the worst possible result for society, policy _____ is good because you can link it back to freedom, the same way that fundies link it all back to jesus and justify horrible policy on that basis. It is given a magical definition of pure good, the word "freedom". Evidence isn't needed about how well anything works when one believes in that kind of "freedom".

http://youtu.be/0q6HwdF7c34

I think the guy who wrote the letter was trolling ("I should just start believing in god"=I haven't thought about my atheism very much and could change it easily). However, I do regularly hear defenses of horrible human suffering from people in atheist circles on the basis of libertarian bs regularly. I am glad this conversation is happening.

Posted by: Shinobi | May 26, 2011 11:22 AM

@Kev Quondam

I'm sorry, but you were asking for it.

Posted by: locka99 | May 26, 2011 11:23 AM

Atheism is a lack of belief in something. It says nothing for someone's views on any particular matter and it's absurd to expect that non-believers should automatically support gay / disabled rights, liberalism or any other liberal or progressive cause. Perhaps if one professed to be a humanist or similar there might be certain expectations about those things but atheists?

No. I see no reason to belittle the emailer. I would hope that as long as he is able to apply reason and evidence to any particular question he is perfectly entitled to form his own views on any subject he likes.

Posted by: Vene | May 26, 2011 11:23 AM

anti-dogma,

"I furthermore believe that reverese racism (things like affirmative action) against Whites is actually worse than White-on-Black racism."

Posted by: makyui | May 26, 2011 11:24 AM

anti-dogma:

Where did he mention anything pertaining to race?

"I furthermore believe that reverese racism (things like affirmative action) against Whites is actually worse than White-on-Black racism."

Posted by: llewelly | May 26, 2011 11:28 AM

Vene | May 26, 2011 11:20 AM:

... what is the libertarian alternative to a state/federal highway system?

Absent unreasonable government restrictions, everyone would embrace their Second Amendment Rights, and drive tanks, rendering roads in general and highways in particular unnecessary.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | May 26, 2011 11:29 AM

Where did he mention anything pertaining to race?

I furthermore believe that reverese racism (things like affirmative action) against Whites is actually worse than White-on-Black racism.

Posted by: natural cynic | May 26, 2011 11:33 AM

In recent times I considered the question if it's not better for me to just start believing in God and the bible since I have so much in common with Conservative christians.

Posted by: Epinephrine | May 26, 2011 11:34 AM

@Enkidum

Logical consistency is admirable, it's just not evolutionarily important.

Full of win.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | May 26, 2011 11:39 AM

Oh, and PS: That's still not worse than white on black racism. Racism is racism, it doesn't get better or worse depending on who the racist is.

Posted by: stripey_cat | May 26, 2011 11:43 AM

In one word, this guy's a skinhead. He's the sort who, when I was a kid, firebombed refugee hostels and looked for Turkish immigrant-workers to beat up on a Saturday night. The atheism thing is incidental to his rather nasty RWA tendencies, and probably arose (if it wasn't blindly accepted from his parents or peers) because it absolves him of the responsibilities to be nice to your ingroup that religion imposes.

Over here in Europe, I've sadly met a few non-theists (often the sort of agnostic who doesn't give a shit), and nominal theists who don't believe in divine punishment, who take the attitude that if there's no God to punish them they can go all out for personal gain, and any attempt by society to restrict them is an infringement of their rights, rights that they are not willing to generalise to humanity as a whole. They've chosen to espouse a belief system that places no restrictions on their actions, knowing that they're taking advantage of the fact that people who believe in the rule of law won't shoot them in cold blood. They're the nastiest sort of parasite and freeloader. In particular, they're normally rather keen on promoting religion, moral systems and obedience for *everybody but them*, as that makes it even easier for them to get away with bad behaviour. I'd say "sociopathic tendencies", but that's an insult to everyone with a PD who's managed to create a functioning morality. "Antisocal scum" is my preferred epithet.

Posted by: abb3w | May 26, 2011 11:44 AM

I'd suggest the letter writer would find it easier to take up Randite philosophy for justifying most of his beliefs (if he hasn't already) rather than Christianity. Mind you, there's a couple serious errors in her reasoning; but most people seem to find it hard to spot (or easy to ignore) the exact mis-steps, though many realize there's something fishy on seeing her conclusions. And despite the popularity of her precepts among "Prosperity Gospel" variant Fundamentalist Christians, Ayn Rand was an atheist herself.

Of course, he might also care to consider whether his other preconceptions are valid. In particular, "good" and "bad" represent directions of an ordering relationship for sets of choices. (Mathematically, a poset; auf Deutsch, "Ordnungsrelation".) It is possible to enumerate (for finite sets; construct, for non-finite sets) the class of all possible ordering relationships, such that whichever good/bad ordering relationship you are using corresponds to some member of the class. The key questions are first, WHICH member of the class is the order referred to; and second, on WHAT BASIS is that member of the class chosen?

I don't think there's much point to suggesting that the letter writer read up on the research on Social Dominance Orientation (stuff by Sidanius and Altemeyer; the latter's free PDF E-book "The Authoritarians" provides an introduction). However, I do feel obliged to point out again this slightly worrisome finding for the Pharyngulae.

Posted by: vaeisenberg | May 26, 2011 11:55 AM

@Raven - not necessarily, i mean, i am from slovakia yet i do have negative opinion on affirmative action (i believe it is class inequality that needs addressing) - especially when there might be similarities. The fact you aren't from somewhere doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on their politics, especially if it's a country as net-wise important as USA.


In a very related way, i suspect another segment of it. See, i have little idea about germany, but at least back home, conservative christians are in fact economically centrist - it is the social aspects in which they are conservative.
So his talk of abolishing taxes doesn't quite fit.

The thing that's actually troubling about this letter is the way the supposed molecular biologist treats truth... the lack of evidence for theism is in no way influenced by your political beliefs after all.

Posted by: oihorse | May 26, 2011 11:58 AM

In one word, this guy's a skinhead.

Actually, the term is bonehead.

For reals.

Posted by: Copyleft | May 26, 2011 12:02 PM

"I'm an atheist, but also a far-right conservative."

Hmm... I see no real conflict. "I'm smart, but also evil."

We've got plenty of dumb-but-evil people; why shouldn't there be a few smart-but-evil folks too?

Posted by: raven | May 26, 2011 12:07 PM

I think that the state has no right to impose taxes on citizens.

Good luck with that one.

A state that doesn't impose taxes on the citizens ceases to exist.

Somalia is one of the few examples.

And you end up paying anyway. Somalia's average lifespan is around 45 years and falling, 3 decades less than the commies in the First World. No one knows the latest statistics because everyone is afraid to even gather them. And you will be armed with military style weapons and/or part of a group that is so armed. Which will be used often. Or end up a slave or worse.

Posted by: Beriaal | May 26, 2011 12:11 PM

My troll-radar is now broken.

Posted by: Akousticplyr | May 26, 2011 12:20 PM

"However, one cannot be a rational, intelligent human being and contributing member of society and hold the conservative views you do."

Oh come on, Doc. I'm a fan of your blog and a devout atheist ;) but the constant anti-conservative political attacks ring closely to what uppity religious folks sound like to an atheist. Substitute 'conservative' with 'liberal' and your statement holds as much fecal matter.

I am drawn to atheism because it is based on evidence, fact, and common sense. Politics are a personal choice based upon emotional perceptions of society. You feel liberalism is the best system, I don't. I think the answer lies in the middle. Some liberal policies are good, some conservative ones are good.

I don't hold traditional conservative values like the German dude. I'm for abortion (just not abused as a form of lazy birth control), for homosexuality (go to town, just no minors!).

But what is so bad about wanting you to stay out of my wallet and being pissed at some people who don't hold themselves accountable to themselves instead of society? And if you think that the government doesn't tax us enough....the govt is spending 58000 dollars a second, about to lose our credit rating, and we want to spend a billion on a new train? Jeezus.

I'm pretty tired of white male guilt syndrome. I'm a military officer and don't discriminate because I hate everyone equally! (Just kidding). As someone said about affirmative action (which is a good idea in theory) "you can't eliminate discrimination by practicing it." And in extreme cases, reverse discrimination DOES occur. Its quite a difficult position being "the victim of a victim." Yes there is discrimination. We MUST be supportive of minorities getting screwed over. But stop screaming racism at every little thing that doesn't go a minority member's way. Maybe you got fired because you suck at your job. Maybe you didn't get hired because you can't spell your name on a job application. If a minority makes up 12 percent of the population, it isn't necessarily racism if a company employs a workforce with a 12 percent minority.

Finally, your "Rethuglican" name calling sounds as shrill as Christian IDiots preaching design. It doesn't reflect well or help your position at all. Just makes you sound like an asshole. And I'm sure you aren't one, Doc, but perception is reality.

I would say to a religous person: prove there is a God. I say to you: prove that liberalism is better than conservatism. May as well say: prove my kid is better looking than your kid. Its too personal and subjective!

Love your blog, have tremendous respect for you, just don't have to agree with everything you say. Cheers!

Posted by: Iain Walker | May 26, 2011 12:21 PM

Paul (#137):

Pascal has nothing to do with it. Pascal was all about eternal payoff.

Exactly. What PZ's correspondent seems more attracted to is something like William James's "Will to Believe" argument (which is just as weak a pragmatic justification for theistic belief as the Wager, albeit not for quite the same reasons).

Posted by: SamBarge | May 26, 2011 12:27 PM

I am, however, rather conservative in my views. That's what troubles me with atheism lately, it seems that atheists are generally on the left side of the political spectrum. Esp. your last post about how atheists should have progressive views in terms of "racism", "gender equality" and "disability rights" made me thinking.

I think JS Mill had it right:

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

Posted by: makyui | May 26, 2011 12:32 PM

If a minority makes up 12 percent of the population, it isn't necessarily racism if a company employs a workforce with a 12 percent minority.

What if it's zero percent?

But stop screaming racism at every little thing that doesn't go a minority member's way. Maybe you got fired because you suck at your job. Maybe you didn't get hired because you can't spell your name on a job application.

Yes, clearly racial minorities aren't getting hired because they can't spell. Good job, keep going.

I say to you: prove that liberalism is better than conservatism.

Well, for one thing, only one of them acknowledges my status as a human being.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 26, 2011 12:34 PM

I'm pretty tired of white male guilt syndrome. I'm a military officer and don't discriminate because I hate everyone equally! (Just kidding). As someone said about affirmative action (which is a good idea in theory) "you can't eliminate discrimination by practicing it." And in extreme cases, reverse discrimination DOES occur. Its quite a difficult position being "the victim of a victim." Yes there is discrimination. We MUST be supportive of minorities getting screwed over. But stop screaming racism at every little thing that doesn't go a minority member's way. Maybe you got fired because you suck at your job. Maybe you didn't get hired because you can't spell your name on a job application. If a minority makes up 12 percent of the population, it isn't necessarily racism if a company employs a workforce with a 12 percent minority.

If you'd like to provide examples, please do. But I suspect that you just don't like your privileged position being challenged. Keep those uppity minorities in their place right?

Finally, your "Rethuglican" name calling sounds as shrill as Christian IDiots preaching design.

Only to a total idiot.

Just makes you sound like an asshole. And I'm sure you aren't one, Doc, but perception is reality.

And here's the difference. I'm convinced you are an asshole.

Posted by: oihorse | May 26, 2011 12:41 PM

I would say to a religous person: prove there is a God. I say to you: prove that liberalism is better than conservatism. May as well say: prove my kid is better looking than your kid. Its too personal and subjective!

Wrong.

While beauty may be subjective, there is evidence of how liberal and conservative values and agendas affect people. This can be parsed, evidence weighed, and value judgments passed.

The question is, are the ideologies that you hold - are they really conservative, or are they just common sense actions that the Right has laid hold of in name only?

For example, living within one's means isn't a fiscal conservative value, it's fucking common sense.

Many Republicans would lay claim to that being a core value of their party. However, when's the last time between 2000-2008 the Republican party attempted that?

You may want to re-evaluate your position.

Posted by: Paul | May 26, 2011 12:43 PM

If you'd like to provide examples, please do. But I suspect that you just don't like your privileged position being challenged. Keep those uppity minorities in their place right?

These make me think of an episode of American Dad. Stan finally finds a best friend, and they have the exchange:

Stan: So, you like paddle boats?

Brett: Damn right.
I think it's 'cause they remind me of a simpler,
better time when white males had all the power
instead of just most of it.

Stan: I know. I hate how we only have most of the power.

Brett: The problem is the liberals' generous social programs.

Stan: Exactly! They've turned us into a nation of wimpy...

Brett: Flag-burning...

Both: Foreigner-lovers!

Huh, now that I think about it, oddly enough the main conflict of that episode is Stan couldn't deal with the fact that it turned out that new best friend was an atheist.

Posted by: sirdarkstar | May 26, 2011 12:45 PM

Ya know, if this was 1846 I MIGHT just be a Republican. It was primarily the southern religious faction of the Democrats that were pro-slavery AT THAT TIME. Guess what buttercup, times change.

The Republican party is a joke (a horrific, disastrous joke). Democrats only slight less so.

PZ can hate on me for it but I'm a Dictionary Liberal :)

Liberal: unprejudiced, broad-minded, tolerant, free, educated, generous, favoring civil rights and reform

I agree with PZ that I cannot understand how a rational person with thoughtful beliefs could be otherwise.

Posted by: jededor | May 26, 2011 12:51 PM

Akousticplyr @ 150:

Politics are a personal choice based upon emotional perceptions of society. You feel liberalism is the best system, I don't. I think the answer lies in the middle.

The trouble is, what you describe as liberalism or leftism in the US is already "the middle".

Posted by: azumahazuki | May 26, 2011 12:54 PM

This is an obvious fake. How many black people live in Germany, 1 million? 100,000?

Posted by: Klatu | May 26, 2011 12:59 PM

"I furthermore believe that reverese racism (things like affirmative action) against Whites is actually worse than White-on-Black racism."

Not very realistic.

How many blacks are there in Germany and how common is affirmative action for them?

About zero, far as I know.

This is a fake.

There are Blacks in Germany. About 500.000.

But even if what you say were true, how does that make him a fake? He's still an asshole, and a real one at that.

Posted by: Paul | May 26, 2011 1:02 PM

But even if what you say were true, how does that make him a fake?

As has been pointed out by other posters in the thread, "affirmative action" towards "blacks" is not really a thing in Germany. They tend to hate on "Turks" more than "blacks". What is being pointed out is that this letter rings much more true if we assume that it's a troll from the US, and not a German at all. Thus, his story is fake.

He's still an asshole, and a real one at that.

I don't think this was in question...

Posted by: Aratina Cage | May 26, 2011 1:05 PM

Well said, Algernon, in #67.

Akousticplyr #150 & #151:

I don't hold traditional conservative values like the German dude. I'm for abortion (just not abused as a form of lazy birth control), for homosexuality (go to town, just no minors!).

You stupid fucker! News to you: kids are gay, too. Being gay doesn't start the minute one crosses the legal age of consent. And birth control kills living things--deal with it. And here, take this decaying porcupine with you to GO FUCK YOURSELF WITH, SIDEWAYS.

Posted by: Ewan R | May 26, 2011 1:05 PM

How many black people live in Germany, 1 million? 100,000?

According to wikipedia anywhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 - although this is a count of those without german nationality not necessarily skin colour - so upwards of half a million.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | May 26, 2011 1:09 PM

Akousticplyr:

Politics are a personal choice based upon emotional perceptions of society.

That's quite a lot of the problem. Politics shouldn't be based on personal choice based upon emotional perceptions of society.

Rationalism, when applied to politics, generally arrives at what is often called "leftist" ideals. These ideals are generally based on the ideal of political, social, and economic equality.

The current US conservative crowd are pretty much actively fighting that. They fight for plutocracy and oligarchy, which is antithetical to the espoused ideals of US society.

Event the slightest application of logic to political philosophy leads to the inevitable conclusion that a safe, stable society is best served by ensuring general equality for all members. That means vastly reducing socioeconomic disparity, and ensuring those who are not privileged have advantages in other ways.

Posted by: cairne.morane | May 26, 2011 1:10 PM

@yvi

"You have to keep in mind that Germany is not the US. Especially if he is from the former GDR region, he might have been raised non-religious instead of "arriving at it"."

Good point.

Posted by: Zeppelin | May 26, 2011 1:11 PM

Dear Anglo-Saxons and other kinds of Strange Foreigners,

It is not in fact necessary to point out that someone is from a different country than yourselves every time you mention them. It's ethnocentric and reduces people to their nationality, as if the fact that they're foreign to you somehow makes them *extra* wrong or strange, or some kind of curiosity.

The issue is that he's a weirdo with horrible opinions, not that he happens to be German.
So for fuck's sake don't refer to him as "Mr. Germany" like it's some kind of snarky put-down. It's creeping me out. Please?

Sincerely,

a German guy from Germany who is German

PS: To all the lovely people who've displayed the common decency to address the guy's argument on its own questionable merits: Ich hab' euch lieb.

Posted by: Zeppelin | May 26, 2011 1:15 PM

PPS: Which isn't to say that discussions relating to how his position may be affected by the German social environment aren't worthwhile, of course!

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 26, 2011 1:21 PM

A little html mix-up made my reply to the blockquoted paragraph below disappear:

Maybe you got fired because you suck at your job. Maybe you didn't get hired because you can't spell your name on a job application.

If you’re trying to pass yourself off as not being racist, implying that minorities are too stupid to spell their own names correctly, and then claim racial discrimination because of it is not the best way to go.

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | May 26, 2011 1:21 PM

Email:

I ... strongly believe in evolution.

What we have here is a very typical conservative, who believes, rather than thinks. And, for some reason, he believes in evolution, very strongly.

I don't believe in evolution. I understand it, accept that it happens, see the evidence for it, deal with it and argue fiercely with those who believe it doesn't occur, but I don't believe in it.

Evolution simply isn't a matter of belief. The e-mailer may have used the wrong term in translation, but I see everything else looking like a typical believer. He may have arrived at his view in a rational matter, or he may have just believed a garbled account from an authority he believes.

I say that what we have here is one of those atheists that everybody else seems to think all atheists are: an atheist who believes there is no god.

He doesn't just lack belief in the existence of God, and he does not see that atheism is the default position. Rather, he lives in a world of authority and conformity and belief, and in every way is a Conservative Christian, assuming that the world is obviously God-made--but for some reason he decided to believe there is no God (possibly because he hates God).

He is a believer, not a skeptic.

And a human being. Good luck to him.

Posted by: ecurve | May 26, 2011 1:52 PM

"White male guilt syndrome" = "I really hate being made aware of my privilege."

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 26, 2011 2:04 PM

Isn't that exactly what one would want as an example of non-racist hiring?

Yes... only he was saying that having the percentage of POC in the workforce mirror the percentage of POC in the population is NOT NECESSARILY evidence of racism, as if you would expect to regard such figures as evidence of racism, normally.

Either he left some words out, or his conception of race & racism is so twisted that it's barely recognizable. Either way, it was too incoherent to address from an evidence-based perspective.

Posted by: Browneyedgirl65 | May 26, 2011 2:10 PM

In the Logical world, the last thing a disability-proponent would advocate is the Theory of Evolution.

Oh look! Proof positive that stupidity and atheism can coexist!

Meh.

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | May 26, 2011 2:23 PM

To Mr. German Letter Writer,

With respect to your view in abortion, answer this question: Do you think that it is right for the State to restrict access to abortions (provided by the Free Market in response to demand)?

If your answer is yes, then contrary to your assertion you do not believe in maximizing freedom for everyone. If you answer no then your view sits comfortably within the spectrum of centrist leaning liberals.

With respect to your view on homosexuality, answer this question: Is it right for the State to refuse to provide to them services and benefits (such as those associated with recognition of marriage) that are provided to heterosexuals?

Again if your answer is yes then your view is inconsistent with the maximization of freedom for everyone, and if your answer is no then your view, while not liberal, is consistent with the centrist spectrum, and is definitely not acceptable to the far right.

With respect to your view on taxes, rephrase your question thusly: Should individuals have the right to collectively grant to the state the privilege of the power to impose taxes, in order to obtain the resources to perform duties that promote the common good?

With respect to your views on feminism, elaborate. How is it harmful? And how is it the most harmful? More harmful than terrorism? Crime? War? Natural disaster? Anarchy?

Think about it.

Posted by: Dianne | May 26, 2011 2:31 PM

Speaking of racism, I have a question. Does anyone know of any metrics by which the level of racial prejudice in a country can be measured? The specific question I'm looking for an answer to is whether racism is increasing or decreasing in the US over the past decade. Any social scientists out there?

Posted by: btthegeek | May 26, 2011 2:38 PM

Epinephrine wrote:

...that suggests that the employment is happening independently of consideration of group membership. Isn't that exactly what one would want as an example of non-racist hiring?

Not really. Look at it this way. You have 100 positions for manual labor open. No experience needed, no education required. You fill the positions and end up with a mirror of the population. So far so good.

Next suppose you expand your business to include some manufacturing, repair work, and bookeeping. These positions require employees that have certain skills. Minorities are less likely to have those skills because they have been discriminated against in the past (lack of education, ability to travel, etc.), so they suffer further discrimination, albeit inadvertent, that reinforces their status as eligible for only the manual labor jobs that you have open.

An example of this would be the typical agricultural company. I'll give a rough description of where I used to work: 100 hispanic employees to do the manual labor (mostly male), 5 or so white bookeepers (maybe one of which is bilingual/hispanic, all female), and 4 or 5 white managers (all male, one bilingual/hispanic).

In order to maintain the ratio of POC employees in the skilled positions to the POC in the population at large, you now have to actively recruit skilled POC or assist non-skilled POC workers with becoming skilled. This is not something that most companies have an interest in doing even if they recognize the inadvertent discrimination.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | May 26, 2011 2:41 PM

Steven Mading, #199:

I took it as "if you're gay, stay away from innocent children with your gay-influencing madness, you smut peddlers."

(disclaimer: not gay)

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 26, 2011 2:43 PM

In the Logical world, the last thing a disability-proponent would advocate is the Theory of Evolution.

That's like saying firefighters should oppose combustion theory.

Citation seriously fucking needed there. Wow. I still can't believe that mindset is out there. When I hear that, I just can't believe that the person saying it has brain cells. How blinkered do you have to be to think "reverse racism" is worse than actual white-on-black racism?

Well, if you've got your head up your ass far enough to think that racial equality has generally been achieved, you might take the position that minorities should be more wary of engaging in racial discrimination because they've had firsthand experience with it, so they know how bad it sucks.

If.

Posted by: Torugu | May 26, 2011 2:45 PM

it's just that they want the government to preferably spend all that money on RealGermans(tm) rather than evil lazy Islamist infiltrator immigrants and corrupt lazy EU bureaucrats and Greek/Irish/Portugese freeloaders.But suddenly it gets ridiculous. RealGermans? This is so wrong I can't even refute it. It's "The main political goal of the Republican party is the examination of gall stones in small to medium sized avians." wrong. There is a problem with certain groups of immigrants that have a tendency to build the Islamic version of the Bible Belt within our society and unlike much of the US we DO consider that a problem that requires political attention. There is of course the danger of generalization but so far no major German party has made that error. The CDU (Germany's conservative party) is no exception. Additionally the CDU is likely the most europhile party within Germany - not that there are any major europhobe parties - and one of the most europhile parties within the European Union.

It appears to me that you are confusing conservatives with Neo-Nazis. But Neo-Nazis aren't libertarian...

Posted by: Steven Mading | May 26, 2011 2:52 PM

To everyone who says the e-mailer must be fake just because he's using American political terminology not commonly seen in Germany: He did claim in his letter to be someone who reads PZ's blog regularly. Did it ever occur to you that a person can be aware of the politics in another country and use them as examples when talking to people of that country?

Stop presuming he's fake just so you don't have to admit that PZ is wrong to try to define atheism in a way that makes it necessarily include liberalism. There are conservative atheists. I don't *understand them*, and I don't get how they reconcile the two in their minds, but I don't try to deny that they exist.

Posted by: Muskiet | May 26, 2011 2:53 PM

This guy is a fake if his reason to consider being a Christian is because he has so many things in common with them and his reason for being an atheist is because he believes evolution is real.

Being a Christian is only plausible if you believe in the Christian god and being an atheist is only plausible if you don't believe in any gods and neither has anything to do with whether or not you are a progressive/conservative or whether or not you believe evolution is true/false.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | May 26, 2011 3:00 PM

ovdk:

- the PZ rationality is based on the premise of egalitarianism. Other premises are perfectly possible: For example: - Survival of my genes

The survival of your genes is best guaranteed by a safe, stable, sane society. You are back to egalitarianism.

=> Me > My Family > rest of Humanity > animals ...

I think we pretty much do this already. However:

The best way to live a comfortable, enjoyable life is to live in a society that is safe, stable, and sane. You are back to egalitarianism.

=> if demographic weight is an advantage that can justify to forbid anything contrary to reproduction (homosexual, abortion, contraception...)

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Truly. If you're saying we should ensure that everyone breeds in order to guarantee the maximum genetic variation achievable in the human population, I'm not sure what the rational goal is. Just the variation itself?

Note that I don't say that "selfish gene" automatically lead to "selfish behavior" or "social darwinism". but it doesn't automatically lead to "altruism" or "egalitarianism".

Most rational goals rather do lead to egalitarianism. If you wish to live a comfortable life in which you have a chance to procreate, your best option is to participate in a society that will protect you and your offspring. You essentially want a safe, sane, and stable society, which is best achieved through egalitarianism.

Same thing if you don't give a damn about procreation, but just want to live a good healthy happy life.

A lot of people think their most rational choice is to take everything they can grab, but the truth is, most people will end up on the losing end. So, on whole, egalitarianism is the most rational option, no matter your actual rational goal.

Posted by: Epinephrine | May 26, 2011 3:05 PM

@btthegeek

Next suppose you expand your business to include some manufacturing, repair work, and bookeeping. These positions require employees that have certain skills. Minorities are less likely to have those skills because they have been discriminated against in the past (lack of education, ability to travel, etc.), so they suffer further discrimination, albeit inadvertent, that reinforces their status as eligible for only the manual labor jobs that you have open.

I wasn't going to get into minority versus majority, which is why I simply used two groups (A and B) that are presumably differing only in regard to group membership. I know I was simplifying the situation, and that to address what you referred to as "inadvertent discrimination" (or unequal access to training, opportunity, etc.) may require discrimination in terms of efforts made to recruit from some groups - at my work it is pretty standard to see on any job notice a disclaimer like "In support of achieving a representative workforce and our employment equity goals, selection may be limited to qualified candidates self-identifying as belonging to one of the following Employment Equity groups: Aboriginal peoples, Persons with a Disability, Visible Minorities and Women."

In light of the fact that generally any negative discriminatory effects in hiring job tend to be against the less socio-economically favoured (with a few exceptions), proportional representation on a workforce would tend to suggest a good hiring practice, rather than the opposite, which was why I was curious, but SallyStrange has addressed that already :)

Posted by: Akousticplyr | May 26, 2011 3:09 PM

--Thanks for the debate, SallyStrange. Tongue in cheek return fire now.....

"That’s great. May I suggest applying the same standard of reason and evidence to your political ideology as well?"

--Okaaay. Kevlar vest is on.

"Whenever someone starts spouting the “Golden Middle” fallacy, I hold on to my wallet. Sounds like you’ve been suckered into believing the media’s favorite shibboleth, the one that relieves them of responsibility for evaluating the truth behind the claims politicians make."

--(Hmm, it seems that applies to both ends of the media spectrum, doesn’t it? Both sides blow smoke. Glad to see that YOU aren’t ‘suckered’ by those manipulative bastards since you are so much more superior in intellect than all of us. Your implication that there is no middle only serves to mandate YOUR side is right, and the other half of the country is wrong. Modest).

"Since they can be counted on to take the bogus “Well, the Democrats say X, and the Republicans say Y, who are we to decide?” approach, it gives an aura of false legitimacy to the lies propagated by the right wing."

--(And the left are the bastions of truth? Are you serious?)

--You said I'm not for abortion. Thanks for telling me what I am for or against. You are sitting in judgment (quite a bit throughout your rebuttal I might add) for one line. Sorry for not being more verbose. I am pro choice, pro abortion, but I don’t have to like the act of an abortion. Its a necessary evil. You do whatever the hell you want with your body... I don’t give a shit. I never said anything about regulating abortion, either. Just that both men and women should use some damn common sense and understand the repercussions of their actions with some personal responsiblity, that’s all. My taxes support clinics that perform abortions but if you don’t think that some scumbag people abuse this service you have your head in the sand. Are you always that knee jerk defensive when a man says the word abortion?

"Do you routinely insinuate that heterosexuals are prone to pedophilia as well, or are you just demonstrating your bigotry against gays and lesbians here?"

-- Quite the contrary, I never do. In fact I regularly cite statistics which support the opposite. There is no corellary between homosexuality and pedophilia, which pisses off religious whackjobs to no end. What I was referring to is an absolute abhorrence of either hetero OR homosexual activity that involves minors. But according to you and your pristine judgment I’m a bigot now. How do you know I’m not gay? Or are there no gay conservatives in your planet?

"What’s in your wallet is a result, partially, of the largesse shared with you by the rest of society."

--Wrong. Batshit crazy wrong. Whats in my wallet I worked for to provide for myself and/or my family. Not you. Your implication is that I owe the rest of society for the privilege of working? Fair enough, I do. They’re called "taxes" and "community service." The rest is off limits. You don't get to tell me what I should or shouldn't do with my money, and I won't tell you what to do with your body.

"What’s this, more bigoted dog-whistle language? Huh? Are you referring to Reagan’s mythical Cadillac-driving welfare queens, or some other fact-free shibboleth of right-wing ideology?

--EXAMPLE, first hand account: in college I worked in a factory. A guy came to work late. Was told company policy that if anyone was late 3 x in a 1 month period without reason they would be fired. Guess what, he was late 3 x. Stupid prick just couldn’t come to work on time. The manager fired him, then the guy railed that it was racism. I guess alarm clocks are racist. So yep, I am allowed to be pissed at that moron in whatever frequency range you prefer to hear it. I am saying that SOMETIMES it isn't racism, thats all.

"You have not offered a coherent argument here as to why the government is taxing us too much."

--(Look at your W-2. Then tell me how much of Social Security you expect to collect when you retire. Can you say mismanagment?)

"...but you don’t seem to have any particular reason that cutting spending is the way to go."

-- No, that’s exactly what I was implying. Come on, you read between the lines for all my other apparent implications of bigotry and hatred, why not catch this one? If we spend less, we have less debt and therefore need lesser taxes to payoff that exponentially rising debt. Why cant liberals wrap their brains around this?

"Where, oh where is your alleged commitment to “evidence, facts, and common sense”? "

--(Ok, off the top of my head, the INVESTMENT of a billion dollars for the rail system will make the average train enroute times for some of those routes about 6 minutes faster. Wha-? What a bargain!

"And I’m pretty tired of white men using this fake, fact-free myth that the world expects them to be guilty to get out of taking responsibility for shaping our society so that future generations may enjoy more equality."

--You said it, sister! I rest my case. People like you hunt for injustice where it sometimes does not exist. Wait...How do you know I’m not African-American and sick of being lumped in based on my skin color instead of my merits? If I’m not...then us white hetero guys (WAIT... I may be African-American, you don’t know....wait, I may still be gay, too) are too busy running the world subjugating minorities in secret societies to waste time digging up statistics . After all, 68 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot. Tailor them to suit your argument when needed.

"Just kidding? All evidence to the contrary…"
--(humor, sense of – (phrase): be smarmy, make jokes. Try it, you’ll like it.)

"If you really thought that affirmative action is a good idea, whether in theory or not, you’d realize that that quote is completely irrelevant, since the theory of affirmative action does not entail any discrimination against any group."

-- Umm. Yes it does. It is a device or policy that gives particular attention and/or preferential deference to a specific group based on gender, race, creed, etc etc. I’m for a level playing field where one exists. Example- combat arms in the military. Physical requirements should meet the demands of the job, not be tailored to the individual’s shortcomings when pursuing the job. (Throttle back, suffragette....I am talking about BOTH men and women here.)

"And in extreme cases, reverse discrimination DOES occur.
Do you have evidence for this? Is it based on facts? Or is this just another fact-free right-wing shibboleth masquerading as “common sense”?"

--shibboleth....'I don't think that word means what you think it means.' I. Montoya.

Sure. If a woman gets pregnant, she gets maternity leave. Can I get paternity leave? Why or why not?

“Yes, racism is bad, but not NEARLY as bad as having to listen to those uppity n*****s bitching and moaning about the discrimination that really only happens in their fevered, over-emotional imaginations!”

--Where the f@.K did you get the N-word from? Spring loaded reaction? How do you know I’m not African-american?? And still possibly gay). I could be talking about a Serbian minority. You are jumping to conclusions based on your personal phobias and hatreds again.

"If you’re trying to pass yourself off as not being racist, implying that minorities are too stupid to spell their own names correctly, and then claim racial discrimination because of it is not the best way to go."

-- I’m implying that if you can’t set an alarm clock and come to work on time, you are an idiot who deserves to be fired. Stupidity doesn't discriminate.

"A lecture on tone from the guy who seriously thinks that non-white people are so stupid that misspelling their own name is a common mistake they make."

-- (Your inference from my non-implication that you implied I implicated. Take off your rose colored glasses, please. Stupid people misspell their names. P E O P L E.

"One of these things is not like the other… one of these things does not belong!"
--THAT WAS MY POINT.

"Evidence can be provided, or not provided, for the existence of god. Evidence can be provided as to the impact of conservative vs. liberal policies on individuals and societies."

-- Feel free to provide this evidence. Still subjective.

--From the white (maybe black) hetero (maybe gay) guy (may be transgendered) ruler of the world to Sally B. Anthony.... please calm down.

You calling me an asshole is as cheap a shot as me saying something like, "please do us all a favor this weekend and get laid. It will distract you from your throne of judgment." But I won't sink to that level.

Happy Memorial Day!

Posted by: Aratina Cage | May 26, 2011 3:21 PM

@Akousticplyr @Steve Madding

"Do you routinely insinuate that heterosexuals are prone to pedophilia as well, or are you just demonstrating your bigotry against gays and lesbians here?" [--SallyStrange]
-- Quite the contrary, I never do. In fact I regularly cite statistics which support the opposite. There is no corellary between homosexuality and pedophilia, which pisses off religious whackjobs to no end. What I was referring to is an absolute abhorrence of either hetero OR homosexual activity that involves minors. But according to you and your pristine judgment I’m a bigot now. How do you know I’m not gay? Or are there no gay conservatives in your planet? [--Akousticplyr]

So here we have Akousticplyr talking about a personal "abhorrence of either hetero OR homosexual activity that involves minors". Which means what exactly?

Does it mean that sex should be reserved for legal adults or does it mean that adults shouldn't have sex with children or...?? Can we get a little clarity here?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 26, 2011 3:32 PM

@slignot

Bad idea. Skeptics are possibly worse as a movement when it comes to that jackassery.

Posted by: slignot | May 26, 2011 3:34 PM

One note on affirmative action while I'm thinking of it and before I have to run: it's not just quotas, although people seem to believe that.

What is commonly termed "affirmative action" also includes things that level the playing field for recruitment. For example, it can be requiring that business recruiting for jobs don't disproportionately advertise for better paying clerical, or management etc. jobs in publications or venues read by a single subset of the population. When people in areas with greater diversity in ethnic background are allowed to know what positions are open, those who are qualified have opportunities that would be denied them if an advertisement only went up in a paper or journal read primarily be upper-class white people.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 26, 2011 3:37 PM

If there is proper emotional and contraceptive saftey involved I see no reason why I would torment my kid by shaming them and policing their sex life.

Puberty hits and kids are gonna be curious. Job is to give the right saftey education and not freak the flip out about it on them. "I as a parent am not ok with you being a sexual being" is a horrible message to send

Posted by: Aratina Cage | May 26, 2011 3:42 PM

Right, so Akousticplyr, let's just be clear about what "homosexuality" is—it isn't the act of sex between two people of the same sex, it is being gay. What you double-posted in #150 and #151 sounded to me like the same gay-erasure crap happening in Tennessee right now where homosexuality in children is being actively suppressed at the state level. It's good to know that is not what you meant.

Posted by: GermanMan | May 26, 2011 3:42 PM

Come on, even the premise of the letter is bogus. There is hardly any German denomination that shares the letter-writer's political views nor do most care about his views about evolution. He would have to go all the way to the Catholic far-right fringe groups --- or go Muslim, but those guys might be a bit two brownish for his tastes. He could just as easy go to a national German party _and_ keep his non-belief because those fucks mostly aren't religious (but will stress 'Christian' traditions when they can abuse some Muslim group with it).

The letter-writer is either a German living in America, or someone kept in his uncle's basement without the keys or any outside-contact beyond PZ's website, or a trolling asshat who's laughing hard about anyone writing here. Or all of the above.

Posted by: gex | May 26, 2011 3:45 PM

I find it very refreshing actually for someone to outright admit that racism, misogyny, and homophobia are the purview of the right and of Christianity.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | May 26, 2011 3:47 PM

You know, one of the good things about being German is that your ancestors embarrased you and your offspring for generations to follow so much that one idiot with a computer can't cause any significant damage.

Having said that:

One of our largest political parties is the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). They never actually refer to god, the bible etc. But they are pretty much the political incarnation of the RCC.

The German RCC holds quite progressive views on matters of social security and war and peace. On every single question raised over the last years on social security, healthcare and welfare, the RCC actively opposed the CDU.

On the other side, at least parts of the CDU are more liberal on abortion issues, stem cell research and homosexuality.

Things aren't easy.

@Darreth #171
I've heard about this place in another thread. It's that small tropical island where only two dozen people live off the sales of their very exclusive stamps.
However, the country with the official name of "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" is quite a different place.

There is a problem with certain groups of immigrants that have a tendency to build the Islamic version of the Bible Belt within our society and unlike much of the US we DO consider that a problem that requires political attention.

Posted by: ovdk | May 26, 2011 3:48 PM

@niguelTheBold

The survival of your genes is best guaranteed by a safe, stable, sane society. You are back to egalitarianism

The assumption safe & stable => egalitarianism is disproved by history (maybe with the exception of the last century)

In fact it is arguable, in historic perspective, that agressive, imperialist civilizations were more successful than other.

Demographic weight is not about genetic variation. it is about the fact that, technology notwithstanding, a battle of 10 people vs 100 people has a big probability to go in favor of the 100
(by the way, I think it's exactly the rationale behind religion position on reproduction).

egalitarism may be the most rational ... as long as there is enough ressources for everyone.

to say that otherwise:
Do you think the earth has enough ressources to support the whole world population on american standard of living ?

Posted by: Bjarne | May 26, 2011 3:51 PM

Just one small point: there is nothing in the letter that indicates that the writer is male (conservative women can dislike feminism too you know). Yet everyone here talks about "him" and "this guy." Please be aware of this.

To the letter itself, the writer certainly has a very unusual position for a German.
As it has been pointed out, German Conservatives are not antitax. Thats more a feature of German Liberalism. The same holds true for the privatization fetish of this person.

Yet the anti-choice, anti-feminsm, anti-LGTB and anti-Civil Rights stance in general, does position this person in the far-Conservative spectrum again.

Taken, that the neo-Nazi groups have taken a Strasserite position in the last decade, it is unlikely, that the letter's author is a neo-NAzi.

Yet, last year, a party called "Die Freiheit", styled after the Dutch Partij voor de Vrijheid has been founded and I can see the writer in its political vicinity.

What makes me much more suspicious is, that a suposed student of Biology links evolution to the issue of religion:
"I study molecular biology and strongly believe in evolution. "
and:
"In recent times I considered the question if it's not better for me to just start believing in God and the bible since I have so much in common with Conservative christians. On the other hand, evolution is a pretty strong argument against the literal interpretation of the bible and I already understand to much about this stuff. "

This is a highly unusual position in Germany. Conservatives and most Christians alike, accept Evolution as being the by far most likely explanation for biodiversity.
The few Creationists we have are generally people with a migratory background. People the author seems not to be too fond of.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 26, 2011 3:56 PM

The "F" bombs were inappropriate, too. On both sides.

Well if you don't like it, you can always fuck right off with your idiotic fucking fauxpology. There are plenty of websites with lots of fucking monitors and censors on them, I'm sure you'll feel much more at home there. Anyway, we don't need people who think it's fucking appropriate to always be reminding gays and lesbians that they're not allowed to fuck kids, in the context of a completely unrelated conversation about equal fucking rights. Your fuckwitted contributions won't be missed.

[flashback to the "fuck fuck fuck" era of commenting! Wheeee!]

Posted by: DeusExNihilum | May 26, 2011 3:59 PM

"I support individual freedoms, unless you want an abortion, to live your life as a homosexual or be a woman"

Makes TOTAL sense, who needs internal consistency when you've got a bottomless jar of hypocrisy?

Posted by: Akousticplyr | May 26, 2011 3:59 PM

Oh damn. I see. The implication of pedophilia with LGBT folks.

ARGH. I'm sorry! That's NOT what I was speaking about. That was the furthest from my mind in this exchange. Sparsely worded, I simply meant individual sexual preferences are nobody's business, except (I hope we can all agree) when the line of child molestation is crossed.

IN NO WAY did I mean to insinuate pedophilia and homosexuality have a direct or indirect connection. Again, I'm fully aware that the opposite is true.

The entire point was that you can have some conservative ideals and still be pro abortion, be atheist, , pro gay marriage, and not give a crap about your sexual orientation.

Although I'm thinking about starting a group against the molestation of decaying porcupines being shoved up rectums....sideways.

Walking it off.....

Posted by: Aratina Cage | May 26, 2011 4:01 PM

The "F" bombs were inappropriate, too.

Yeah, I did violate the 3-post rule on that one and should have asked you to clarify what you meant first. It was good of you to explain yourself better, although you aren't going to be relieved of that anytime soon if you stick around with your apparent men's rights advocacy and libertarianism.

Posted by: GermanMan | May 26, 2011 4:02 PM

@232, Giliell

On every single question raised over the last years on social security, healthcare and welfare, the RCC actively opposed the CDU.

It might look that way but remember who's probably the biggest single player in hospitals, child-care, welfare, making a huge pile of tax money from it... Look also at the wages and welfare the RCC offers their own employees.
It's not black and white but it's sometimes curious how the church's agenda pays off for them, almost all the time.

BTW, the original letter: I'm against taxes so I want to become a Christian... stupid beyond repair, given how many tax money the Christian churches get directly (from their members' wages) and indirectly.

Posted by: Waffler | May 26, 2011 4:04 PM

Akousticplyr:

We MUST be supportive of minorities getting screwed over.

Ergo, conservatism.

/snark

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | May 26, 2011 4:07 PM

ovdk:

The assumption safe & stable => egalitarianism is disproved by history (maybe with the exception of the last century)

Considering we are talking about the context of the last century (specifically, present-day), I'd say you're answering your own question here.

But, to be fair, that's an excellent point.

I would say that most modern societies, especially the egalitarian ones, are far preferable for both genetic propagation and general comfort of life compared to even the longest-lived empires in history. In general, as long as you were a noble, you were OK; but if you were a peasant (the vast majority), life was not nearly as pleasant, nor as long.

Demographic weight is not about genetic variation. it is about the fact that, technology notwithstanding, a battle of 10 people vs 100 people has a big probability to go in favor of the 100

Ah! Gotcha. I had not heard the term "demographic weight" before. Thanks for clarifying.

egalitarism may be the most rational ... as long as there is enough ressources for everyone.

A truly egalitarian society would help ensure there were enough resources for everyone -- even if that meant population control. Restrictions on number of offspring shouldn't be too problematic, if implemented in an egalitarian fashion.

to say that otherwise:
Do you think the earth has enough ressources to support the whole world population on american standard of living ?

Depends on which American standard of living you are considering. The standard of living of the poorest 25%? Perhaps. The standard of living of the top 25% ? Certainly not. The 50% in between? Probably not.

The world is currently overpopulated for our current resources and level of technology.

Posted by: Steven Mading | May 26, 2011 4:10 PM

Just one small point: there is nothing in the letter that indicates that the writer is male (conservative women can dislike feminism too you know). Yet everyone here talks about "him" and "this guy." Please be aware of this.

Stop blaming people for a misfeature in the langauge. (That misfeature being that third-person singular pronouns require you to specify gender unless you want to insult somebody by saying "it" instead of saying "he" or saying "she". Slowly it seems the language might be changing to fix this by allowing the plural "they" to be used in singular context, but as of right now that still contains the air of grammatical error that makes the speaker seem less literate. Hopefully that might change, but it hasn't yet.)

Don't blame people for the misfeatures of their language.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | May 26, 2011 4:12 PM

@Dianne
Sorry I didn't respond, but I had to get other shit off my chest ;)

Well, I don't know. Out of those people who grew up on an air base I never met any who considered themselves to be German. Given that I live near one of the biggest air bases, my sample number is quite large.

Posted by: Aquaria | May 26, 2011 4:14 PM

I'm not so sure this guy isn't German.

If we'll all recall, our super special dumpling of awesome, Walton, used to express views not far from this. Not quite this bad, of course, but not far off. And he was British.

If we'll recall, he expressed admiration for Ann Coulter--someone who would be laughed off the stage door if she even tried to spew her bile on most European airwaves. How did he learn about her? How did he pick up the terminology of America right-wing conservatards, like this guy obviously has?

I'm afraid the problem is that it's not difficult to get the views of American conservatards, from anywhere in the world. The stupid--it's a plague, and the internet isn't immune to it.

If this guy isn't a poe, or just a jack-off troll, maybe he can be turned around, a la Walton.

A lot of people worked very hard to turn Walton around, but I don't hold out much hope for this turd. Walton 1) wasn't remotely this bad, originally, and 2) had enough bullheadedness and thick enough skin to keep coming back, until he was hooked.

This turd is a coward, who was too afraid to come in here and duke it out with the horde.

Posted by: Florian | May 26, 2011 4:16 PM

I´m German, this guy´s a fake:
1) No German ever cared about affirmative action. Simply because we don´t have it.
2) There´s no German party that advocates his "conservatism": Liberals praise free market, but are socially progressive. Christian Democrats are socially conservative, but not anti-gov (Cons here are comparable do US-Dems). Everything else is left of them, except far rights, who are definitely against free market.
3) Germany´s pretty secular, but still the gov is so nice as to collect the "church tax" and pass it on to the churches. Doesn´t that throw Mr. Poe in some serious conflict?
4) No relevant church in Germany supports his anti-gov stance. They need the gov to fight the true enemy, capitalism. We don´t have tea party-evangelicals here.
5) Not that Germany is better in any way, but views like his are simply non-existant here. Everyone - Communist, Green, Social Democrat, Liberal, Christian Democrat, Neo-Nazi - supports a powerful government, and nobody denies its right to tax.

If he were real, he shouldn´t become Christian, because none of them here share his views. He might think about emigrating. But I don´t think he has to; all his arguments sound American.

Posted by: makyui | May 26, 2011 4:18 PM

That misfeature being that third-person singular pronouns require you to specify gender unless you want to insult somebody by saying "it" instead of saying "he" or saying "she". Slowly it seems the language might be changing to fix this by allowing the plural "they" to be used in singular context, but as of right now that still contains the air of grammatical error that makes the speaker seem less literate. Hopefully that might change, but it hasn't yet.

There are third-gender pronouns. Shi, ze, hie... Particularly benefiting people who don't fit the gender binary.

Posted by: GermanMan | May 26, 2011 4:19 PM

@237, Steven Mading

The idea that the fact that he's using American political terminology is evidence of him not being German is silly.

I can accept that about the political terminology. But it doesn't make sense in terms of his atheism: "I think about giving up my atheism in order to be a good conservative." That just doesn't apply to Germany. To be in concordance with his proclaimed political views, in Germany he can keep his atheism. His hair has to go, though.

Neither neonazis nor mainstream churches will give any thought to his evolutionary views. That's just hardyl a topic in German public discurse. Unless you think that the whole molecular biology thing is also only political terminology, but I can't decipher the metaphor there.

As I said, he might just be very, very clueless about Christianity in Germany but if he's really college-student age (>20 in Germany) that stretches my imagination.

Posted by: Liesmith | May 26, 2011 4:22 PM

Does it reflect poorly on me that my first thought upon reading that "Feminism is one of the the biggest threats to society", my first thought was of an action movie trailer:

In a world, where women are treated equally...

*Scene of a 1940's businessman calling his secretary "sweet cheeks", then exploding in a fireball*

Directed by Michael Bay. Starring Shia LaBeoeuef as Feminism.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | May 26, 2011 4:25 PM

@GermanMan

It might look that way but remember who's probably the biggest single player in hospitals, child-care, welfare, making a huge pile of tax money from it... Look also at the wages and welfare the RCC offers their own employees.

@Dianne
Hmm, I have to disagree.
What (western) Germany did after WWII

1) Pretend it hadn't been us. Some aliens, maybe. No need to exclude somebody from public office just because they had been a member of the NSDAP since 1931

2) Blame it on the Russians, really

3) Complain about how everybody is still talking about that shit when it happened 50 years ago

4) claim that the legacy of Auschwitz means that now you have to bomb other countries again, prefferably one you bombed in WWI and II already.

Posted by: Aquaria | May 26, 2011 4:28 PM

As there is people here that think they can provide a rational proof on morality, I'm quite interested.

Proof is for mathematics. Science and atheism are about evidence.

If you want some of the scientific evidence (rational basis) for morality, then you've come to the right place. We're going to get you hooked up.

Google Scholar is your friend.

Studies about altruism and social behavior are instructive on the evolutionary origins of morality, because altruism and social give-and-take are pretty much the basis of morality. That link will show you just how deep in our evolutionary history altruism is.

There's even an article about ten down that discusses micro-organism social behavior.

Start there, then come back.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | May 26, 2011 4:31 PM

Hey, Akoustic - you're an asshole. A fucking asshole to boot. "F-bombs?" Grow the hell up.

Posted by: makyui | May 26, 2011 4:35 PM

Parting shot... why is it when liberal and conservative points are argued, it always devolves into personal attacks?

Because conservatives say things that are so unbelievably stupid and outrageous that the only sensible reaction is to call them on it.

I'm not sure calling someone an ignorant bigot when they say that affirmative action is worse than racism is "devolv[ing] into personal attacks", though. More like calling a spade a spade.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 26, 2011 4:39 PM

@Akousticplyr

--Aquaria and I said basically the same thing to you, but now you're mad at me and think that I'm having some sort of Freudian moment, but you want to have Aquaria's babies?

What gives?

Posted by: Horace | May 26, 2011 4:43 PM

@269 Akousticplyr

**Parting shot... why is it when liberal and conservative points are argued, it always devolves into personal attacks? **

This is not true. The personal attacks have nothing to do with liberalism and conservatism, they are due to the nature of people who contribute to internet discussion groups who lack the social skills to discuss politely. Many of them are probably very polite face to face.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | May 26, 2011 4:49 PM

ovdk:

For the present, lot of people in the world see the USA as imperialist and aggresive

Yeah. That's because they see it as it is.

We are trying to fix it, though. Really. It's just so fucking hard with all these mega-conservative fucking assholes in charge.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | May 26, 2011 4:54 PM

@German Man

But I'll give Catholics that they have a lot of lower-tiers and volunteers who are personally mainly interested in helping other people --- and above that a conservative bureaucracy trying to control and make money off them.

Posted by: Rasmus | May 26, 2011 5:00 PM

Apart from the gay hate the email reads like it could be from almost any young conservative man from almost any country. (There is of course no nontheistic line of thought that can lead one to conclude that safe sex between consenting adults is bad.) Apart from that it looks like it could have been written by your average 20-something conservative man in Sweden. I imagine it's the same in Germany.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 26, 2011 5:01 PM

@KOPD:

You'll just have to think of this as your local pub, not the fucking ladies garden club.

Though it's often both at once. Which kinda rocks.

Plus it's a fuckinggarden club, if you know what I mean, and a doing-naughty-things-with-sheep-fur club, and a recipe-swap club and ...

Grog now, plz.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2011 5:06 PM

Apart from the gay hate the email reads like it could be from almost any young conservative man from almost any country.

one has to wonder then, where they get this bullshit from?

any insights on THAT?

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 26, 2011 5:08 PM

What is the criteria that you use to decide the size of the group?

Any being whose actions affect my well-being, and whose well-being I can affect through my actions, is part of the in-group for me.

Logically, that means all living things.

That's the ideal, personally speaking. We can't take care of each other without also taking care of plants and animals and the soil and air and sunlight that allows all of us to live.

Which is why environmentalism and social egalitarianism are intrinsically connected, especially since environmentalism adds the dimension of intergenerational equality to the picture.

Since there are 7 billion humans now, anything we all decide to do (eat food, for example) is going to have a global impact. Therefore we are morally obligated to consider the implications of our actions on a global scale, and include the well-being of the entire biosphere in our consideration of what's right and what's wrong.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2011 5:09 PM

But don't give up your good manners, they make post worth reading

TO YOU.

people who care more about substance than presentation OTOH, tend to ignore good manners in favor of what the person is actually saying.

fucking tone trolls, how do they work?

Posted by: Akousticplyr | May 26, 2011 5:11 PM

Horace, Nigel-
You guys rock. I was getting worried about PZ's audience there for a while....whew.

Josh (of the Glitteratti)- yeah? wellll, that's like....your opinion, man. You have "glitteratti' in your name and I'm the guy that need's to grow up? I don't want to grow up, Mr. Poopy-pants. Hmm..now where's my Han Solo doll at...?

Sally (and Aquaria)-
I regressed into neanderthal knuckle-dragging mode there. I'm not mad! Please don't be with me. I was just getting snarky to get the lowest common denominator from all these aggressive posts. You both make very good points (and, respectfully, very bad points in my opinion) and I appreciate the passion that you have for your viewpoints. I really do. I think that's why we're all reading this blog to begin with.

I learned a lot today.

Posted by: makyui | May 26, 2011 5:17 PM

Wha..? Of course racism is worse. I never said anything different, nor that affirmative action is bad.

I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the OP.

You have "glitteratti' in your name and I'm the guy that need's to grow up?

Yes, 'glitteratti' is soooooo childish and might not have some sort of meaning behind it or anything. Sounds like Akoustic doesn't like it when people have fun. :c

I regressed into neanderthal knuckle-dragging mode there. I'm not mad! Please don't be with me. I was just getting snarky to get the lowest common denominator from all these aggressive posts.

You are quite the tone troll, you are. Do you need a fainting couch?

Posted by: Akousticplyr | May 26, 2011 5:29 PM

makyui-
but you quoted me there...so I'm assuming you were talking to me. Guess I got that wrong, too.

...and does the fainting couch have massage pads and a seat heater? I'm in!

Of course, why should I expect any civil discourse when talking to intelligent people about social issues? 'I know how to sway his opinion- call him a fucker!' Eureka! It worked! I'm now convinced that advocates of extreme liberal ideas shoot themselves in the foot the moment they open their mouths.

Posted by: tonyatkinson70 | May 26, 2011 5:30 PM

I dont understand how you can condemn homosexuality of you believe in evolution

You would have to conclude its natural.
you would also have to conclude its not going to be selected for as homosexuals cannot reproduce.

what harm can it do?
who does it hurt?
shouldnt we be free to live as we want if it doesnt harm anybody?

i dont know how an atheist can think its wrong
can anyone explain?

Posted by: Horace | May 26, 2011 5:32 PM

@292 Akousticplyr

Ignore posts that are just offensive and have nothing to say (e.g. @270).

Also, remember that a lot of people here don't have much contact with other like minded atheists and so the discussion threads are more a form of solidarity therapy for them rather than an opportunity to exchange ideas. Pity is more appropriate emotion than irritation in these cases.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | May 26, 2011 5:33 PM

Wow, missed that gem

If a woman gets pregnant, she gets maternity leave. Can I get paternity leave? Why or why not?

Oh, and if you're talking about some unpaid holiday you can take during the first year(s) of the child's life, men can take that, too, here. I'd really appreciate if more men did it.

@David
Well, especially the "it's been soooo long, I'd appreciate if you stopped talking about it" is pretty common, I think.

@Ichthyic #293
I think you missunderstood the poster. He didn't want to defend a pro-dead-women stance but rather tried to explain how the reasoning goes.
And indeed, in Germany abortion laws are based on the "human dignity" of the fetus.
As a "fun fact" (note bitter irony): you can hardly get a legal abortion in Germany (only in case of rape or when your life is at risk or when it would be an "undue burden). You can only get an illegal one and not be punished for it.

Posted by: Rasmus | May 26, 2011 5:38 PM

one has to wonder then, where they get this bullshit from?

any insights on THAT?

Dunno... I guess from other twenty-somethings (on the internet). Fox News on late night cable.

Anything that is hardcore weapons grade anti-PC is gold when you're in your late teens/early twenties. Then the real world data begins to tick in and you realize that there are reasons for why a lot of ideas have become politically correct.

Posted by: Richard Eis | May 26, 2011 5:42 PM

Actually, I understood exactly what Akousticplyr meant with his original comment. Which is why I haven't touched the rest of the comments in case I caught the stupid lurgy. Why you all made a massive fuss and wound each other up about it is beyond me.

Play nice children.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | May 26, 2011 5:43 PM

@Akousticplyr

Of course, why should I expect any civil discourse when talking to intelligent people about social issues? 'I know how to sway his opinion- call him a fucker!' Eureka! It worked! I'm now convinced that advocates of extreme liberal ideas shoot themselves in the foot the moment they open their mouths.

So me calling you a "fucker" made it impossible for you to understand anything that came afterward, is that it? Come on. You jumped into a thread that starts out with some idiot claiming that being gay, having an abortion, and being an activist for women's rights are all "wrong" with your own poorly worded, all-over-the-place, seemingly bigoted double post. Well, EXCUUUUUUUUUSE ME!

Posted by: btthegeek | May 26, 2011 5:49 PM

tonyatkinson70 wrote:

you would also have to conclude its not going to be selected for as homosexuals cannot reproduce.

KOPD wrote:

Yes they can.

Isn't homosexuality also fairly well represented in species other than ours?

Posted by: David Marjanović | May 26, 2011 5:51 PM

Of course, why should I expect any civil discourse when talking to intelligent people about social issues? 'I know how to sway his opinion- call him a fucker!' Eureka! It worked!

Intelligent people simply do not care about tone. They care about what is said, not about how it is said.

in europe, everyone who isn't white, arab, or oriental is considered 'black' ... turks are definitely 'black'.

...what?

Would you please explain???

Turks, Arabs and other orientals* are considered white over here. The American concept of a "brown race" is lacking.

* Or do you mean East Asians by "orientals"?

Well, especially the "it's been soooo long, I'd appreciate if you stopped talking about it" is pretty common, I think.

Really? In Austria, when you say that out loud, you practically out yourself as a Nazi.

As a "fun fact" (note bitter irony): you can hardly get a legal abortion in Germany (only in case of rape or when your life is at risk or when it would be an "undue burden). You can only get an illegal one and not be punished for it.

Oh, so it's like the Austrian Solution* to that question? Over here, up to the third month of pregnancy, abortion is illegal but not punished. It is available in a few clinics, but it's not provided for by health insurance**, even though the Social Democrats have been advocating this for 40 years now.

After the third month, it's not punished, and AFAIK even legal, if it prevents the birth of a handicapped child. "Handicapped" is not defined.

Even the Catholic Church rarely dares mention the topic; nobody (except the university organizations of the Social Democrats and that of the Greens) want to reopen the... lively discussion that was had in the 1970s.

* That's a technical term. It usually does not describe a solution.
** Unlike in Germany, the Federal Republic is the only health insurer.

Posted by: David Marjanović | May 26, 2011 5:59 PM

Just thought, maybe that letter-writer is from some rural Bavaria backwater ---

That clashes rather violently with being a libertarian (let alone an extreme American-style one).

Posted by: Sunder | May 26, 2011 6:05 PM

FYI--

Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

Newsweek: No God—And No Abortions
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/11/28/no-god-and-no-abortions.html

Being Pro-life An Atheist's View
http://www.gargaro.com/abortion/atheist.html

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | May 26, 2011 6:11 PM

@David M.

Really? In Austria, when you say that out loud, you practically out yourself as a Nazi.

On the issue of abortion:
Yes, that is about the exactly same solution. Healthcare only covers it in cases where it's "legal"
It's not punished within the first 12 weeks after conception, after that you need a "legal" abortion.
"Hanidcapped" is not an official reason, those are filed under "undue burden on the mother".
Oh, and of course you have to get pro-life counselling before you can get an illegal-but-not-punished abortion.

@German Man
Yes, I agree, but I think they are just less vile than what I hear of American christians.
Heck, I even take my daughter to a catholic play-group once a week, they know I'm an atheist and so far nobody has ever said anything remotely religious to me or tried to prosletyze

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | May 26, 2011 6:33 PM

I'm trying to figure out how privatizing road maintenance trash collection maximizes my freedom.

I'm pretty sure that's just a code phrase for "lets me buy more stuff".

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | May 26, 2011 6:34 PM

Horace #300

Ignore posts that are just offensive and have nothing to say (e.g. @270).

Also post #300.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 26, 2011 6:40 PM

I'm so glad we elected Horace as official blog nanny. It was a wise decision. His Tuttutututing and finger wagging will surely lead us into a new era of prosperity.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2011 6:59 PM

His Tuttutututing and finger wagging will surely lead us into a new era of prosperity.

just as surely as me telling him to fuck right the hell off with a necrotic, sharply quilled, rodent will actually get him to stop trying to play nanny.

won't stop me from trying, though.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 26, 2011 7:26 PM

That basically means that a leaf has the same value as human life.

That's your inference, not mine. Noting that my quality of life is dependent on the continuation of other life is not the same thing as asserting that the value of all life is equal. Are you always this sloppy in your thinking?

This is the most large criteria and it's main advantage is that don't need to justify why you exclude something. but what is the rationale you use to reach that criteria or why this criteria help our genes to survive?

Um... what?

On PZ side that would means that anybody that doesn't consider all living thing equals is not a "true atheist"

This is sad. I was hoping to have a coherent discussion on a topic about which I'm very passionate. But I can't quite understand you enough to see what you're trying to get at. I would just say that I'm not PZ, so bringing him up here is pretty irrelevant.

Are you sure you're not trolling?

Posted by: feralboy12, der Ken-Puppe Sie außerhalb in 1983 verlassen | May 26, 2011 7:37 PM

I'm talking about real conservatives, for example Barry Goldwater who lost an election for USA president in 1964.

In your guts you know he's nuts.

I have to defend my guy Barry here. While he did tend to say some batshit stuff, and was a bit confrontational and militaristic, when it came to social issues (particularly gay rights and seperation of church & state) he tended to be on target, so much so that the current conservative movement would likely disavow him entirely.

Hey, the man once suggested kicking Jerry Falwell in the ass. Or possibly the nuts, depending on who you ask. http://killedbyfish.blogspot.com/2011/03/they-also-ran-good-barry-goldwater.html

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2011 7:42 PM

Speaking of horrible rodents; I discovered Ground hogs can climb trees today...up to about head level.

that sparks many questions, first off being... how exactly did you discover this?

because I expect it will be an amusing story.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | May 26, 2011 8:05 PM

You screamed and made a groundhog run up a tree. Poor little critter.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 26, 2011 8:09 PM

@Dhorvath

No I screamed when I turned my head left and found myself facing the bared teeth of a tree bound woodchuck.

Posted by: makyui | May 26, 2011 8:13 PM

Obviously the wood worth chucking ain't at ground level.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 26, 2011 8:27 PM

Paul & Epinephrine, I have a reply to azumahazuki over here which goes into another recent genetic hypothesis.

Posted by: pelamun | May 26, 2011 8:32 PM

When I read the beginning of the email, I first though, hm a German conservative would be right at home in Obama's Democratic party, especially the Angela Merkel type CDU. Then I read the rest of the email..

But you know, there is also the Norbert Geis type of conservative party, especially in the Bavarian offshoot, in the CSU, and probably also in the Hessian CDU. So don't tell me no German political party would offer the writer a home. Of course a NO on anti-tax (even though the FDP, which is anti-tax does have a national liberal wing especially in the North, but that might be a little bit different), but the idea of a big-tent party (Volkspartei in German) is that you identify with the party you feel covers the issues most dear to you heart.

As for the question whether the writer is a Poe or not, I wouldn't try to read too much into one email. The writer could have "translated" German issues for an American audience, using the example of blacks instead of Turks.

Also, while there might not be Affirmative Action per se in Germany, there are a large number of Germans priding themselves to be anti-Feminist and totally not PC. And this idea of Germans being a minority in their own country, in certain urban areas. The current family minister, Frau Doktor Köhler embodies both of these ideas: she sees herself as a "modern conservative, anti-feminist woman", who as a MP was very active with that anti-German racism issue...

Now as for the debate about Nazism post-War II. It's true that there was a big hush-hush right after the war, while the Wirtschaftswunder was going on. But don't forget what happened in the 60s. I find it a bit odd to say that nothing has happened at all. Of course the official lore might also be too self-serving, but I know many families where there was tremendous inter-generational conflict in the 60s over the role of the parents under the Third Reich...

Posted by: pelamun | May 26, 2011 8:39 PM

I'm sorry, the minister is Frau Doktor Schröder now...

(stressing her title as right now many politicians from the government parties are losing their PhDs. This would be off-topic here too, but she also got her title under dubious circumstances, basically using her adviser's research assistants to do most of the analytical work for her degree)

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | May 26, 2011 9:23 PM

how exactly did you discover this?

While screaming.

I screamed just reading about it. Now I have to watch for the little buggers above my head, too?
*gives evil eye to backyard*

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 26, 2011 9:36 PM

@Dhorvath

Ok so my dog (mini Schnauzer) is barking at the tree and not coming back in from the yard. I go out to get her and find myself nose to nose with a wood chuck at eye level. It wasn't happy.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 26, 2011 9:43 PM

My sister saw a woodchuck in a tree! Or on its trunk, rather. She got up close--like four feet away--and took a picture.

Posted by: prichert | May 26, 2011 10:03 PM

Well I'm about the forty second person to say this but that is Poe from start to finish.

Posted by: mistermuz | May 26, 2011 10:24 PM

Man, Akoustic guy sounds reasonably cheerful on the whole, but why can't conservatives get over "Common Sense"? You can't wade in somewhere say you're a reasonable rationalist and then bang on about probably the least rational epithet this side of 'In God We Trust'. If reason, rationality and science have taught us anything it's that "common sense" is invariably wrong and it should be regarded with suspicion at all times.

I'd also like to see the peculiar American obsession with "Personal Responsibility" disappear from the narrative too. Not that's it's a bad thing in itself, but it represents a faintly Randian fiction that it is somehow diminishing in the world on a daily basis. Likewise it is presented as some sort of useful metric for measuring policy, people's complaints and even emotional reactions to things allowing detached dismissals of any need to engage with the world around you. It's like bottled white arrogance that anyone can take home. Comes in a handy six-pack.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 26, 2011 10:28 PM

Those of you who railed about allowing kids to fuck. Sure, I was all for that right about the time puberty kicked in. Until it concerns my 13 year old. Fucking your 12 year old. Then I'm guessing those who are all for kids boning each other might feel different. But that's an ENTIRELY different topic.

being young and sexually active didn't do me or any of my classmates/friends/acquaintances etc. any harm. why would I assume my kid would turn out dumber and weaker than every single person in my own generation?

The "F" bombs were inappropriate, too.

The assumption safe & stable => egalitarianism is disproved by history (maybe with the exception of the last century)

history shows strong correlation between inequality and instability.

In fact it is arguable, in historic perspective, that agressive, imperialist civilizations were more successful than other.

Do you think the earth has enough ressources to support the whole world population on american standard of living ?

Posted by: Easterngal | May 26, 2011 10:38 PM

Goodness, I so want to smack that person on the head. Fine, can I have your citizenship, please?! I will gladly pay the German tax and in return for all the government services.

In exchange, you can have my citizenship, in that country it is very very very easy to evade tax so you don't have to pay at all. Can we have a deal?

Posted by: atticusdogsbody | May 26, 2011 10:41 PM

That guy is as German as I am. It's possible that he lives in Germany, but he ain't German.

Posted by: Yahzi | May 26, 2011 10:45 PM

Akousticplyr@150 "I'm a military officer"

Akousticplyr@216 "Whats in my wallet I worked for to provide for myself and/or my family. Not you."

I don't think we can expect rational consistency out of this one, folks.

(Hint, Akousticplyer... everything in your wallet came from taxes. The only thing you produce is security, and all you secure us from is other military people. Really, if there were no military people, we wouldn't need them - unlike say, janitors or car-wash attendants, who actually perform jobs necessary to the functioning of even a well-ordered society. So before you go off on your high-horse about leeches scamming producers, you might want to rethink which role you occupy in society.)

(Additional note: I actually love the military - most of my family has been in it at one point or another. I just can't stand libertarians. Frankly, neither can the military, which is all about team work and shared sacrifice.)

Posted by: Little Boots | May 26, 2011 10:52 PM

yeah, libertarian soldier seems an odd juxtaposition.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | May 26, 2011 11:10 PM

what exactly does POE stand for?

Purity Of Essence, obviously.

Posted by: ray.jonathan.w | May 26, 2011 11:49 PM

PZ got trolled. That letter isn't serious.

Posted by: fancyflyer | May 27, 2011 1:25 AM

Well! Thomas More waved that "perfect government that doesn't tax its citizens" business as a fine spoof 500 years ago. Maybe the Germans never got the joke.

Posted by: phlgradstudent | May 27, 2011 2:14 AM

It is entirely possible that this letter is a poe - but unlikely. Damn near every single person who makes this claim actually reveals a huge ignorance of Europe. Turks and Gypsies and all sorts of folks are called 'blacks' here. Fact. And yes, American idioms are common here. As is privatization, - Thatcher anyone???

Moreover, in europe, racism is as common as sexism. And atheism is both the common norm, and atheists are commonly ignorant. I teach at the oldest, and second largest, university in central europe - and I often encounter ignorant, racist. sexists fools who identify as atheist. Were these folks American, they would be born again xtian idiots (as per the cultural norm). But here, they claim for themselves the Enlightenment heritage (descartes, kant, et.al) but don't know how to think their way out of a paper bag. I am so very very glad that PZ takes the time to point out how 'atheism' can be as fucktarded ignorant as 'christianism' ... In the threads on 'dictionary atheists' I was soundlly chastised for pointing out that europe is filled with such fuckwits - and that americans who idolize this place are fools. Here again. Learn from fucking experience or stick your head up your ass and pretend your tribe is the best ... but if the later, you really should stop pretending that you are an empiricist.

All you fools who insist that just being atheist makes you superior thinker are only wallowing in your self righteousness- same as the idiot who wrote the letter. And all you who pretend that this letter cannot be real because it violates what you think you know, you are as pathetic as the original writer.

Posted by: Dianne | May 27, 2011 2:22 AM

If Hitchens were to show up here and rebut PZ's views on foreign policy I wonder if he would be treated respectfully or not.

Not. But only out of respect. If Hitchens were treated with kid gloves and no one dropped a fuck or two on him, he'd think we were condescending to him. And stupid as he is on some issues, he doesn't deserve that. He can take his fucking disrespect like everyone else!

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | May 27, 2011 2:39 AM

@phlgradstudent

Turks and Gypsies and all sorts of folks are called 'blacks' here. Fact. And yes, American idioms are common here. As is privatization, - Thatcher anyone???

Well, Google suggests that you live in Vienna. So, do my Austrian friends call Turks black? David says "no".
But since you chose to ignore every thing anybody has said to you in reply the last time and sprout out the same nonsense again, I doubt that I'll (or anybody else, I'm not that arrogant to suppose it's about me) get a serious reply this time.

Posted by: GermanMan | May 27, 2011 2:55 AM

@370, phlgradstudent

Yeah, grad student, moving to Paris (right?) for your Ph.D. and look at you, now you can lecture actual Germans about that European culture thing that's a monolithic bloc and of which Germany is just the best example.

- in German, neither Turks nor Arabs nor Gypsies are referred to as black, but try to ignore that again because you surely know better
- yes, racisms is as common as sexism, but to think that German racism is the same as French one or German sexism is the same as French one is just being ignorant and obviously proud of it
- atheism is not the common norm in Germany, it's in some Eastern parts but over all there's maybe 25% non-believers in Germany now. When I grew up in the West 30 years ago, almost no one identified as an atheist; today there's still a majority of people self-identifying as Christian; like 65% are actually paying Church taxes, every month, from every paycheck
- who's trying to show his tribe is best? In this thread here? Or are you still hurt that the French, of all people, don't really pay enough deference to American exceptionalism? Well, they kind of have their own version of self-serving history revision, too bad for you.

Posted by: Therrin (Ben S) | May 27, 2011 3:25 AM

#327 Ing

Speaking of horrible rodents; I discovered Ground hogs can climb trees today...up to about head level.

The important question: Could it see its shadow?

I hate missing the interesting parts of threads.

Posted by: Yubal | May 27, 2011 4:01 AM

I am from Germany myself and sort of an Athiest. Politically I am not on any side, my opinions are sometimes better reflected by the liberal or the conservative sector. That really depends on the subject matter. I opose ideology of every kind, and yes fellow Germans, that also includes the ideology of the thriving green party.

No one has all the right answers on the book.

I think you can be conservative, athiest, intelligent and compassionate human beeing the same time.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | May 27, 2011 4:07 AM

@German Man
"2nd largest European University" translated to Vienna in Google, which is also quite old. Not that it's particularly relevant apart from the question which university he's a disgrace for.

- atheism is not the common norm in Germany, it's in some Eastern parts but over all there's maybe 25% non-believers in Germany now. When I grew up in the West 30 years ago, almost no one identified as an atheist; today there's still a majority of people self-identifying as Christian; like 65% are actually paying Church taxes, every month, from every paycheck

Hmmm, I suppose telling you all this is preaching to the choir, but maybe our non-German friends may find it interesting.

Posted by: GermanMan | May 27, 2011 4:40 AM

@382, Giliell

I went for age, not size, so here's wikipedia on University of Vienna:

After the Charles University in Prague and Jagiellonian University in Krakow, the University of Vienna is the third oldest university in Central Europe and the oldest university in the German-speaking world.

Given that Austria is even more Catholic than Germany, I guess Prague also fits better his impression that 'atheism is the common norm' in Europe.
But of course, we're basically wasting our time because gradstud couldn't just tell where he's at but had to give his whole 'I'm in Central Europe, so here's what Europe (and Germany) is like" shtick.

I concurr with your observations about religiosity in Germany. I'd say the special thing is the plurality of faiths and denominations. I grew up with an equal number of Catholics, Protestants and Muslims around me, and now there's also the atheists. That makes it kind of hard to pretend your faith is the only true one. (also: no home-schooling.)

It took me some years to go from atheism to cancel my monthly church subscription fee because, as you said, there's a lot of family identity tied to it, not even in a religious way. And German religiosity is one of the most apathic, toned-down and who-actually-cares anyway, I think. It's still a rallying point for anti-gay-, anti-feminism, or anti-immigration-bigottry but you have to actually look for it, it's not very present in everyday's church life.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | May 27, 2011 4:44 AM

@Yubal

I think you can be conservative, athiest, intelligent and compassionate human beeing the same time.

See, I don't even have to touch an enviromental issue. And I think the Greens are power-hungry bastards who'll sell any position in exchange for another seat in the caninet.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | May 27, 2011 5:07 AM

The current state of many homosexual relations can be regarded as an attrocity from the "order-loving" point of view. They do not obey to the administrative system we are living in the same way non-homosexual people are doing. This is obviously due to their lack of legal status and hence lack of responsibillity for each other. The community needs to know who signs responsible for each other, so if one of the partners fails to comply with a legal situation, his/her spouse has to in proxy.

Unmarried couples of any sexual orientation who are living together are deemed responsible for each other.
Does the word "Bedarfsgemeinschaft" ring a bell?
One day my flatmate and I realized that, whenever it came to benefits we might be entitled to, we would be considered as seperate, but when it came to duties, we would actually have to prove that we're not a lesbian couple.
One of the indicators of us being a "couple" would have been the fact that we used the same milk and had a joint household-cashbox.
If in an unmarried couple living together one is unemplyed they cannot get state benefit if their partner is deemed to earn "too much", yet the partner cannot get the tax benefits a married partner gets.
And whatever form of family people chose for themselves, they're not "attrocities", and they're also not fucking disobeying any system.

Just take your compassionate conservatism and fuck off

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | May 27, 2011 5:21 AM

Dear correspondent, you don't have to develop religion. Just get yourself some empathy and a reality check.

Do some research and find out what job prospects and such are like for outgroups.

Read Andrew Sullivan's essay on what it's like not to be able to marry the person you love. Ask yourself what possible difference it makes to you if all adults can marry the ones they love.

Think about what your life would be like if you were exactly the same personality you are now, but had been born female. Would you want people telling you what was "seemly" for you to do? Would you enjoy taking a 40% pay cut and being passed over for promotion? Condescended to? Assumed to be a bad driver who can't navigate? Told that your own body is not yours to control? Or that if you were mugged, it was your fault for looking rich? That if you get angry, you must still express yourself in a nice way?

Really try for a few weeks to think about it.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | May 27, 2011 5:31 AM

1. From your posting, I conclude, that you are most likely an acolyte of the SED-successor party called "DIE LINKE" or an unaffiliated non-voter.

Posted by: Dianne | May 27, 2011 5:33 AM

@ Yubal: You can't logically both condemn gays and lesbians for not conforming to traditionally heterosexual relationship standards like marriage and deny them access to these institutions. In the absence of equal rights for partners in a relationship, regardless of the gender of each person, it is not possible to even say whether one group or another is less "responsible" than the other, much less have a conversation about whether the "responsible" behavior is the best one for the individual and society.

Posted by: Yubal | May 27, 2011 5:43 AM

@ Dianne #394

You can't logically both condemn gays and lesbians for not conforming to traditionally heterosexual relationship standards like marriage and deny them access to these institutions.

Well, I didn't say any of those.

What I said was: "Same rights, same duties."

These two things come in a package.

There should be no candyland rules for anyone. (This includes also: Athiest, Homosexuals, Woman, Men, Actors, Politicians, Bloggers etc. I might accept an exception for children, since that appears to be a rational thought to me)

In the absence of equal rights for partners in a relationship, regardless of the gender of each person,it is not possible to even say whether one group or another is less "responsible" than the other,

correct. I would assume the two groups in question here are behaving about the same and should therefore be regarded as the same.

Posted by: Dianne | May 27, 2011 5:52 AM

What I said was: "Same rights, same duties."

Then you're pro-marriage equality? If so, I won't argue about how you came to that position. Perhaps I misunderstood you. In the US, there are a lot of people who argue that GLBT relationships are "lesser" in some way because they don't get married-and then argue that they shouldn't be allowed to marry because their relationships weren't as good as straights. I thought you were making that argument. If not, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Posted by: Yubal | May 27, 2011 6:11 AM

@ Dianne

Thank you for your appology it is very welcome but also unnecessary actually, since we were only clarifying language and not really arguing. I appreciate it also in the light of our previous encounters on other topics, which I forgot, but I can remember your nick. In this sense, I also appologize myself for not composing elaboratly formulated elequent and accurate statements.

In the US[....]

...is pretty much as anywhere else. We are all humans living on the same planet sharing the same desires for liberty, love and peace.

Eventually we will have to get there. Oposing opinions will grow out over the generations to a consensus of feasibility.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | May 27, 2011 6:18 AM

@Yubal
Hell, you're pathetic

Hurray! I am out of a commitmet of love and everlasting support for each other"

If everyone is behaving like you, public healthcare will ultimately cease to exist.

Kepp on just thinking of yourself and your own nned, this will surely make this world a better place...for you.

But putting up the strawman that homosexuals/unmarried couples are dodging that responsibility if it's a responsibility that married people don't have either is a lie. You're not even getting the benefit of doubt anymore.

Oh, and you cannot (OK, you obviously can because you're an idiot) accuse me of being a social romantic Die Linke member who wants everything socialized while at the same time being a greedy person who doesn't want to stick up for other people.
The latter one is called liberal or conservative. Remember: Jeder ist seines Glückes Schmied

Posted by: Yubal | May 27, 2011 6:47 AM

@ John Morales

Well, actually this is just a way to end a statemet when talking to some disrespectful young moron who thinks she know already everything in life before even trying out the hardships.

..a bit cheesy, I know...but a classic on the pro side.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | May 27, 2011 7:01 AM

Please, write in German, your English is getting unintelligible.

When I got married (just think outside of your "Germany in 2011 Box" for a minute) I made exactly THAT comitment, and I would live up to it. And I also know some couples who did or would do the same comitment...which is by the way the point in case you noticed, yet.

It is your burden to expalain why the state should treat couples different than non-coples or non-commited couples. If there is none, there would be no reason for straight marriage and gay marriage. If there is one, it has to be the same.

I cut out the de mostration of you overlap with Die Linke, since it should be obvious even to narrow minded people as you are,in case you you read the program.

(german) Socialized Healthcare is going to fail eventually if nothing in changed about it, which includes you and those people who can not afford it (good for you that you can or at least are willing to btw) paying much much more into it.

Hey, cupcake, you're actually fun.
You're not providing any evidence, you're dishonest, you're twisting other people's point of view and you're totally talking out of your ass. You accuse other people of being ignorant when failing on the most simple reality-checks, which makes you a perfect supporter of German conservatism/libertarianism. Only of course that those at the top know that they're telling you lies and that they're screwing you over.
Nur die allerdümmsten Kälber wählen ihren Schlächter selber.

Posted by: KG | May 27, 2011 8:29 AM

I think you can be conservative, athiest, intelligent and compassionate human beeing the same time. - Yubal

Just shows how wrong you can be.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | May 27, 2011 8:53 AM

@KG
Finally I think I understand his definition of compassion:
Charity
You know, like the youth organisation of the conservative party collecting food for the organisations that deal with the mess they've done to the welfare system.
If you just give generously, you know, they'll get help and you can feel good. Only don't ever let them think that have a right to anything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcdtVD8X1-A
Fuck the poor!

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | May 27, 2011 10:00 AM

Akousticplyr:

Horace, Nigel-
You guys rock. I was getting worried about PZ's audience there for a while....whew.

Please don't lump me with Horace. I can get quite offensive, and I don't mind name-calling at all. In fact, sometimes it's both cathartic and funny.

I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 27, 2011 12:50 PM

@Paul

Sorry I get annoyed at that topic.

Our german friend here has shown what compasionate conservatism is. I am compasionate as long as you live exactly as I do, conform to my mores and think like me. Otherwise you're a deviant and a blight on society.

Posted by: Grief | May 27, 2011 6:17 PM

Surely, the absence of a belief in god(s) means only that. It has no implication for social issues.

Posted by: btthegeek | May 27, 2011 7:20 PM

downtown dave the fuckwad:

But everyone who calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved.

Hebrews 6:4-6 (New International Version)

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

Read your own bible, asshole. I'm an apostate. By your own doctrine, you are wasting your time. Fuck off.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 27, 2011 8:30 PM

For just thinking about Jesus.

Yes, God

Posted by: chg.becker.myopenid.com | May 27, 2011 8:32 PM

@Dianne: Argument 2 - it is called "the doctor". Likewise to the "German General Centre against Death". From the moment you are diagnosed pregnant you have the whole medical apparatus at your disposal in Germany. Including sick leave for months if needed. EVERYTHING human possible is done to let your child survive - also the time of spontaneous abortion. Yes, we still have a social health insurance.

@Dianne AND Ichthyic: The argument that something is permissible because it happens naturally too is invalid. Example: murder is not permissible just because we all die once.

The convincing arguments are the well-being of the woman and up to an extent (12 weeks normally according to our abortion-paragraph §218) the self-determination of the woman versus right-to-live of the fetus (please go and see Peter Singers argumentation for the latter before ranting back at me).

Posted by: btthegeek | May 27, 2011 8:47 PM

downtown dave the fuckwad wrote:

My prayer for the person who wrote the e-mail is that, despite persecution and ridicule, they look into the matter.

Isn't that just like a Christian. First, even though you are in one of the big five religions, you pull the persecution card.

Then, smug in your own certainty, you decide that the best course of action to help save someone from eternal torment is to pray to your deity, which is really a form of non-action called "talking to yourself." I would advise you seek professional help.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 27, 2011 9:04 PM

I'll take your word for it John.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | May 28, 2011 7:38 AM

@chg.becker.myopenid.com #422
Yes, but
1) How big is research into this? When I miscarried I got told "You know, don't worry, it's so common it doesn't have to mean a thing"
If you're lucky, your doctor will do some digging after the second miscarriage, you are entitled to it after the third in a row.

2) If the fetus (or the fucking blastocyte, what's even more ridiculous) was protected by the right to human dignity, please tell me, why do none of my documents say that I have 3 kids? Why was the first "human" with all its human dignity dumped with the rest of the hospital waste (for the record, I don't care about it, that was just meat)?
Why have parents who DO care about it fought about a right to burry those remains for ages (and have only been kind of granted them lately)?
Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it: If you claim it's a human person worthy of protection, you have to treat it like one all the way.

Posted by: chg.becker.myopenid.com | May 28, 2011 10:00 PM

@Dianne: 1) I honestly don't know. Google Scholar suggests that there is some research.

2) Because law and law and law care differently about anything? You are asking me a values-question concerning laws. You are asking me to reason why there is (in Germany) factual harsher punishment for crime against property than for crime against people. You are asking me why it took so long to find a modus operandi for our current abortion law: because we people tend to work not really well together.

I don't want to have any cake and eat it too - you are assuming that there is a kind of continuity in any law-giving body that simply does not exist anywhere.

But I can answer you one thing - yes, the fetus is protected by these laws even against abortion after the 12th week (normal cases) in Germany. That is why I used the word "fetus", because about half of the pregnancies terminated in Germany are from 8th-12th week, fetal period starting with the 8th.

And again, yes, this 12 weeks-limit is the compromise of us fallible people in Germany between self-determination of existing life and dignity of a new life. Justified scientific and political and thus prone to correction.

If you are looking for a plain YES/NO on abortion, please become religious.

Posted by: David Marjanović | May 29, 2011 2:45 PM

I'm so glad we elected Horace as official blog nanny. It was a wise decision. His Tuttutututing and finger wagging will surely lead us into a new era of prosperity.

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

Thread won!

I have to defend my guy Barry here. While he did tend to say some batshit stuff, and was a bit confrontational and militaristic, when it came to social issues (particularly gay rights and seperation of church & state) he tended to be on target, so much so that the current conservative movement would likely disavow him entirely.

Hey, the man once suggested kicking Jerry Falwell in the ass. Or possibly the nuts, depending on who you ask.

I know.

This isn't good for Goldwater, it's bad for todays' Reptilians. It drives the point home that they are even worse, not that he was better.

Now as for the debate about Nazism post-War II. It's true that there was a big hush-hush right after the war, while the Wirtschaftswunder was going on. But don't forget what happened in the 60s. I find it a bit odd to say that nothing has happened at all. Of course the official lore might also be too self-serving, but I know many families where there was tremendous inter-generational conflict in the 60s over the role of the parents under the Third Reich...

"Dad, where were you in the war?"

My theory is that same sex attraction is a co-opted mechanism of pair bonding that helped social cohesion.

Fails to explain why homosexuality occurs in every vertebrate species that has been watched for long enough.

In humans at least, at least male homosexuality is correlated to above-average female fertility. It could be a side effect of an allele that confers a net advantage.

(stressing her title as right now many politicians from the government parties are losing their PhDs. This would be off-topic here too, but she also got her title under dubious circumstances, basically using her adviser's research assistants to do most of the analytical work for her degree)

...oh. I'm not really surprised, but I only knew of Guttenberg and of the EU commissioner Hahn from Austria who used the Guttenberg method. Hahn was Austria's minister of science until recently; it seems like the conservative party simply had nobody better than that for that job.

Schizophrenia is associated with reduced reproductive success, but may have been selected for.

Awesome paper! I'll need to read the rest later...

It is entirely possible that this letter is a poe - but unlikely. Damn near every single person who makes this claim actually reveals a huge ignorance of Europe. Turks and Gypsies and all sorts of folks are called 'blacks' here. Fact.

Where the fuck? Where?

...OK, historically, yes, "Gypsies" were often called "black". That was not meant to declare them African, because Africans simply never came up in conversation; and most of them do have darker skin than almost any Turk.

But in German-speaking countries there are almost none left (that's a euphemism for WWII); that's where the Turks go, and I've never heard of them being called black. I live in Vienna, one of the largest Turkish cities this side of İstanbul.

And yes, American idioms are common here.

"Affirmative action" is not among them. FFS, I wouldn't even know how to translate that into German!

Moreover, in europe, racism is as common as sexism.

Xenophobia is. Racism... usually doesn't have enough targets.

atheism is [...] the common norm

On your side of the Iron Curtain. Not over here, where Catholicism has that role; probably not even in France.

If his perception of Central Europe isn't as skewed as mine, gradstudent may actually live in Prague.

And indeed, the Charles University in Prague is the oldest university of Europe outside of Italy and France.

-No minimum wage

*blink*

What? Germany doesn't have a minimum wage???

Schroeder anyone?

*snort* Gazprom-Gerd.

You are tiresome and unmature. Your tolerance capabaillity for non ingenious thought is your brain eaqual the one of a SED or NPS member. Remember Rosa Luxemburg's famous statement.

...which is?

I haven't read any communist classics, and I bet neither have most people here.

That is why I used the word "fetus", because about half of the pregnancies terminated in Germany are from 8th-12th week, fetal period starting with the 8th.

Really? The only definition I've heard is that the embryo turns into a fetus when the 3rd month begins, not the 2nd month.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 29, 2011 2:58 PM

Fails to explain why homosexuality occurs in every vertebrate species that has been watched for long enough.

Fails to distinguish between 'homosexual behavior' and 'homosexuality'.

Presumably the difference between an embryo and a fetus is the difference between development/organogenesis and (primarily) growth? For humans that would be around 10 weeks from fertilization (= 12 weeks from the previous menstruation, so conventionally the 12th week of pregnancy).

Posted by: David Marjanović | May 29, 2011 3:45 PM

Nope, no minimum wage, it would clearly ruin the economy if you had to pay a hairdresser more than 3€/h.

:-o

WTF.

Why doesn't Germany have as many working poor as the US, then (where there is a minimum wage, but it's too low in most or all states)? Is public healthcare the only factor?

Fails to distinguish between 'homosexual behavior' and 'homosexuality'.

Well, yeah, except I think that's a distinction without a difference. Why would anyone who's not bi- or homosexual engage in homosexual behavior unless forced?

Posted by: chg.becker.myopenid.com | May 29, 2011 4:00 PM

@Ing: Od Wet Rust: There is nothing weasly about "I don't know the exact point when a fetus becomes viable and sensitive enough to count as a human. But that point is the point of no return for awarding the fetus its human rights for me."

Clear cut as crystal and so debatable due to science still being out on "when is this point? how indiviual is it?".

Not to mention that others define this point of no return as "consciousness must have set in" or "it must be viable" (about 5 months preterm delivery at this point of medical science) or "cerebellum has to be developed enough to feel pain" (about 7 months). Or the extreme I talked about in my first comment: "on fertilisation".

So, again: If you are looking for a plain YES/NO on abortion, please become religious. Let yourself TELL when such a point is (never, week X, always, post-natal too) and simply believe it.

We can debate about a plain YES/NO about 'abortion in principle'. There you'll find me at "Yes". But - not without a time limit because of above.

@Sven DiMilo: Yes, that is the kind of definition of fetus as I understand it.

@Giliell: Why has the right of a fetus to live to surpass that of the bearing woman? WHEN is it equal in your eyes? Really only after birth? That is the other extreme.

You are asking for a scientific argument to end an ethical discussion. I gave you several step-stones of two cells becoming a human, but WHEN it equals a human in its rights, that is the ethical debate. Ethics is not really quantifiable. You are going round in circles. Your kind of dogmatic view is no better than a religious moral code.

Posted by: KG | May 29, 2011 4:25 PM

If you are looking for a plain YES/NO on abortion, please become religious. - chg.becker

There's nothing religious about supporting women's right to bodily autonomy, arsehole.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | May 29, 2011 5:36 PM

Herzchen, niemand zwingt dich hier rumzusitzen. Und wenn du das Bedürfniss hast noch mehr unglaublichen Schwachsinn von dir zu geben, tu dir keinen Zwang an.:
Und um auf deinen Punkt zurück zu kommen

1) Ob ich eingewilligt habe den Fetus für diese Zeit zu unterhalten oder nicht ist völlig irrelevant. Was zählt ist meine jeweilige aktuelle Einschätzung der Lage. Oder um bei meinem Vergleich zu bleiben: Nur weil ich dir schon einen halben Liter Blut gespendet habe hast du keinerlei Anrecht auf noch 2 Liter und eine Niere.

2) Ja, es kommt durchaus vor, dass Frauen ihre Schwangerschaft erst später bemerken. Eine reichliche Menge Frauen hat weiter Blutungen, die man auch als Periode deuten kann, andere haben einen sehr unregelmäßigen Zyklus.

3) Zu behaupten dass die Zustimmung der Frau "nur ein Teil" der ethischen Debatte sei zeigt, dass Frauen bei dir eindeutig nur ein untergeordneter Teil der Debatte sind (oh, und dein eigenes Geschlecht interessiert hier einen Scheiß)

4) Lern erst mal, was ein ad hominem ist, komm dann wieder.

5) Oder lass es.

6) Bitte, lass es.

Posted by: Therrin (Ben S) | May 29, 2011 6:06 PM

If we clean up after ourselves, can we get the deposit back?

Posted by: Therrin (Ben S) | May 29, 2011 6:21 PM

"And thee shall not post thy words in double, for that shall weaken one's argument and show that, yea, thou dost resend prior to refresh, and did I not give thee two ears and one mouth, that thou shalt listen more than thou speakest? And is shalt really a word?"
--Book of Benjamins, 3:14-15