Comments by Serdan

1. Life's founding organism kept its cool, researchers say

Comment #305729 by Serdan on December 23, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Crusader,
"How did that early life know that replication was important, it just happened to be good at it?"

Your question is nonsensical. Go read The Selfish Gene or something.

Early life didn't know anything. Just like most modern life doesn't know anything.

2. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291170 by Serdan on November 26, 2008 at 7:10 am

decius,

Actually, it does. More primitive areas of the brain light up in connection with sexual arousal, as it happens with sexual predators at the sight of whatever is the object of their obsession, something that does not occur in sane individuals. The nature of the misfiring may be unknown or poorly understood, but it can now be mapped nonetheless.

They didn't happen to get the subjects for such studies from prison, right?

3. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291147 by Serdan on November 26, 2008 at 6:51 am

decius,

Waaaaay too small a sample size. 11 subjects for one of the studies and 1 subject(!) for another.

Also,
"However, empirical evidence of a causal relation between abnormal brain functioning and pedophilia has remained elusive."

4. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291118 by Serdan on November 26, 2008 at 6:21 am

Bonzai,

So is Serdan a paedophile?

Depends... How old are you?

Steve,

Generally homosexuals don't plan on raping people. The object of our desire is not people who could be damaged by our attentions.

Why can't the same be true of pedophiles?

Peace,

Thanks for your tutorly guidance of my thought process here...

You're welcome.

Oh, please. Propaganda' If I knew that there was an adult who had sexual feelings for children, then I would not let my children anywhere near them, whether I thought they would act on those feelings or not. And why' Because I wouldn't want to take that risk. That's not unreasonable as far as I'm concerned, in fact I consider it downright fucking sensible.

What if a friend of yours, through many years, came out as a pedophile?

Also, better keep your children away from short and left-handed people.

Quatz,

T'was Serdan.

In response to someone who thought it would be a good idea to further demonise the poor people.

Jabber,
You're awesome.

Anvil,

If you are a paedophile and you wish to rape a child then that is pathological – you may believe the child consents... but that is merely part of your pathology. It has no connection whatsoever to homosexuality. It is not falling for any 'propaganda'. it's just thinking it through as I see it.

Non-pathological pedophiles do not want to rape children. They cannot control their attraction, but they will never act on it.

5. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291064 by Serdan on November 26, 2008 at 5:30 am

Steve,

If you have a desire to do harm that has to be held back by self control then you are sick, and should get treatment.

So all Christians should seek treatment? By their own admission they feel tempted to do evil every day. ^_^

6. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291049 by Serdan on November 26, 2008 at 5:20 am

Please. If you can't resist silly Hitler comments as a form of response, there is no way to continue.

Why are people so eager to feel insulted? My intention was for you to stop for a moment and consider whether you crossed a line somewhere.

A sensible society would try to resist opportunities for close contact between paedophiles and children. Watch what happens if we don't. This is analogous to sectioning the mentally disturbed for our and their benefit (doen with proper controls and assessment).

Also, we shouldn't have homosexuals in the army because they are going to rape the other soldiers.

Where can I watch what happens if we don't'

We have to balance liberty with protection. We don't allow the public to carry guns for this reason, even though we are not suggesting they would use them for crime.

Are you comparing humans to a tool made for killing?

7. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291034 by Serdan on November 26, 2008 at 5:11 am

Laurie,

Does the evidence support the claim that having a sexual preference for prepubescent children is always due to mental illness?

8. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291023 by Serdan on November 26, 2008 at 5:03 am

Quetz,

You're not crazy. You've just bought into the propaganda that pedophile equals child rapist (I've heard people make the same connection with homosexuality. It's obviously only heterosexuals who can keep their loins under control).

9. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291011 by Serdan on November 26, 2008 at 4:51 am

For your information, the vast majority of paedophiliac crimes occur between male criminals and female victims. Paedophilia is not a crime specific to sexual orientation. I happen to be an expert in this area, as for the past twenty years I have worked in gaols with prisoners who are guilty of paedophiliac crimes.

From Wiki:
"As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children."
and
"In law enforcement, the term "pedophile" is generally used to describe those accused or convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor (including both prepubescent children and adolescent minors younger than the local age of consent)."

I am concerned with the first definition, so your experience may be quite irrelevant.

I return to my previous question: what has being gay got to do with paedophilia' And, while I'm at it - just what does your statement "both have to do with sexual attraction" mean, anyway'

That both denote the focus of a person's sexual endeavours.
Another similarity could be that both are demonised and considered unnatural or immoral. How long did it take the bigots to recognise that homosexuality is not a choice, and that homosexuals should therefore not be demonised?

You ask if there is any fundamental difference other than the focus of attraction. Let me ask you something. Are you attracted to children' No' Good - then you are normal, like the vast majority of straights and gays.

For the sake of argument: Yes. I'm a pedophile. I have a sexual preference for prepubescent children. I also think that children are sacred and would never harm a young person. So does this mean that I am not normal? Is it grounds for discrimination?

As for your point: Yes, you are right. There's a difference in what the words describe as the focus of attention. Homosexuality has to do with gender, while pedophilia is concerned with age.

Admitting you are a paedohpile (but did not act on it), would not make you a criminal though.

There is an interesting question about how society should deal with such people. On the one hand, such a person sounds obviously socially concnered, and deserving of help and support (since he or she cannot act on their impulses, is there a way to help the avoid this struggle, or can we create realistic child sex toys'). On the other, wee need to protect our children: an admitted paedophile best not be allowed to teach children for example.

This same reasoning could apply with someone who admitted they fantasied, but did not act out on, rape-stranglings or any other extremely sociopathic behaviour.

Sieg Heil!

Most people recognise the difference between fantasy and reality. A rational pedophile would probably be the best person in the world to teach children.

10. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290941 by Serdan on November 26, 2008 at 3:44 am

But Serdan's point is, well what if paedophiles do not act on it' Well, then so what' We have not yet felt the need to punish for thought-crimes, and hopefully never will.

Except that we already do. Admitting to being a pedophile is social suicide (if you're lucky). Pedophiles are also demonised incessantly.

11. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290937 by Serdan on November 26, 2008 at 3:40 am

Quetz,

Pedophilia is not all about having sex with children, just like homosexuality is not all about butt-sex.

12. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290933 by Serdan on November 26, 2008 at 3:36 am

Laurie,

Both have to do with sexual attraction. Earlier I asked if there was any fundamental difference other than the focus of that attraction. Maybe you know?

13. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290926 by Serdan on November 26, 2008 at 3:25 am

Laurie, so you don't mind pedophiles?

Re polygamy: They don't, if it's illegal. Duh...

14. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290922 by Serdan on November 26, 2008 at 3:21 am

Re polygamists: Shouldn't they have the same rights as monogamists?

15. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290920 by Serdan on November 26, 2008 at 3:20 am

Not do away with it. I rather like the idea for some reason. Just (to paraphrase) pass no laws respecting the institution. Problem solved.

Same thing. People can perform whatever ceremonies they want.

16. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290915 by Serdan on November 26, 2008 at 3:13 am

One is a consensual relationship, the other is abuse, rape and molestation of a vulnerable child. That's a bit of a stupid question.

So all homosexuals are in a relationship, and all pedophiles rape children?

There's a difference between the attraction itself and how you may act on that.

17. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290910 by Serdan on November 26, 2008 at 3:07 am

Steve,

I know... I'm just impatient with all those idiots.

Mord,

Point taken.

A previous poster was rightly slated when he compared homosexuality to paedophilia.

Is there a fundamental difference between the two, other than focus of attraction?

18. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290894 by Serdan on November 26, 2008 at 2:43 am

Whatever the idea[l] situation might be, the current situation is that marriage does give rights and benefits. Because of that, it should be available to all adults.

I'd rather go for a revolution than try to patch up a broken system.

What about polygamists?

Assets left to a spouse are not liable to inheritance tax. Assets left to a partner are.

Huh? Why the difference?

Another benefit that I would receive by being married, ironically comes into play if I got divorced. I would receive disability benefits based on my wife's income not mine (because her income has always been higher), and when I retired I would receive retirement benefits based on her income also.

Sounds nice, but should it be that way?

19. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290874 by Serdan on November 26, 2008 at 2:12 am

There are matters like inheritance, tax and pensions. Also, for people in some situations, things like hospital visitation rights are important. There have been sad cases where someone has no right to visit a partner in hospital against the wishes of the sick person's relatives.

Re inheritance: I thought that was what we had wills for.

Re tax and pensions: Why should these things be different for married people'

Re visitation: That's just absurd.

Meh, I think we should just do away with marriage.

20. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290869 by Serdan on November 26, 2008 at 1:55 am

Steve Zara,

Do you understand that marriage is more than just a ceremony' It provides legal rights and protections'

Please explain why, because I am gay, I am less entitled to those rights than a straight person.

Could you list some of the rights you consider important'

I'm curious to know what this all about.

21. Obama will move to veto Bush laws

Comment #281298 by Serdan on November 10, 2008 at 5:28 am

Black vote?

You people are so damn racist...

22. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #280541 by Serdan on November 7, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Many would go further and agree with conservative commentator Laura Schlessinger that morality requires a belief in God—otherwise, all we have is our selfish desires.

My selfish desires are the basis of my morals. In a nutshell: I want people to be happy because the suffering of others makes me miserable. I.e. I'm not a fucking sociopath, as so many of these "moral" Christians appear to be.

23. Religion: Bound to believe?

Comment #276115 by Serdan on November 1, 2008 at 10:42 am

JemyM,

Thing is; there is just no widely recognized modern NON-SUPERNATURAL framework that meets the mind, simply because no one have made one. When we only have SUPERNATURAL frameworks ("religions") it's easy to assume that the human mind is more eager to accept or create supernatural ideas.

Actually, Satanism would be one such non-supernatural framework.

Church of Satan

24. Why Children Like to Share

Comment #273674 by Serdan on October 29, 2008 at 5:42 am

What's so great about True Altruism™?

25. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256454 by Serdan on September 29, 2008 at 6:37 am

Laurie,

"k", "thx" and "bai" are commonly used on their own. The reason for why it came to be that way probably has to do with clarity. Even when using chatspeak you still want to be understood. Your own suggestion wouldn't work very well in that regard.

26. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256439 by Serdan on September 29, 2008 at 6:24 am

Mitchell,

Umm... Yes, it is currently necessary. My question was why it should remain so. You have my apologies if I wasn't entirely clear on that.

27. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256436 by Serdan on September 29, 2008 at 6:19 am

Laurie,

Okay, thank you, bye.

28. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256430 by Serdan on September 29, 2008 at 6:13 am

Mitchell,

Okay, here we go:

1.) joint parenting: You can't do that unless you're married?
2.) joint adoption: Again, why should marriage be necessary for this?
3.) joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents): See #2
4.) status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent: Write a fricking contract or something.
5.) joint insurance policies for home, auto and health: I think such things should be available to anyone, regardless of whether they sleep in the same bed.
6.) dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support: See #4
7.) immigration and residency for partners from other countries: Why should marriage affect whether someone should be allowed into the country?
8.) inheritance automatically in the absence of a will: Write a fricking will.
9.) joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment: See #2
etc.

I'm not convinced that marriage is absolutely necessary for any of this.

29. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256414 by Serdan on September 29, 2008 at 5:46 am

Mitchell,

Like what?

30. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256410 by Serdan on September 29, 2008 at 5:41 am

Mitchell,
"I'd rather some form of civil secular union, with absolutely no religious involvement for myself."

Why does your union with another person have to be recognised by the state at all?

31. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256342 by Serdan on September 29, 2008 at 4:43 am

decius,

Wtf?

Fanusi,

I'll put you in charge of eradicating Islam once I've conquered the world.

32. Russian woman put on trial in Dubai for drinking juice in public

Comment #254732 by Serdan on September 26, 2008 at 6:52 am

Sargeist,

It's the Danish parliament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folketing

It's way awesomer than the American system. I still don't understand how they can call that democracy.

EDIT: By the way, we don't have a silly House of Lords either. ^_^

EDIT2: The old Ting was also quite awesome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_(assembly)

33. Russian woman put on trial in Dubai for drinking juice in public

Comment #254701 by Serdan on September 26, 2008 at 5:48 am

Sargeist,

Oh, I will. I'm going to pwn the Folketing and revolutionize society...

Or something.

34. Russian woman put on trial in Dubai for drinking juice in public

Comment #254696 by Serdan on September 26, 2008 at 5:38 am

Of course, why anyone would voluntarily visit a country where you even have to think of taking such absurdities into account is a question with no sensible answer.

As absurd as having to take into account that you can't dry a plant and smoke it, or pluck some mushrooms from a field and eat them.

35. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254689 by Serdan on September 26, 2008 at 5:18 am

Not quite, because that is a view that I don't find degranged.

You don't think it's deranged to murder people in their homes?

You are the deranged one.

36. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254622 by Serdan on September 26, 2008 at 2:27 am

Fanusi,

Serdan, at what point to you thik it accceptable to consign an innocent life to oblivion?

As long as it is an unthinking clump of cells.

Look, we're not going to agree on this. Yet can we both agree that there are rational grounds for holding either of our two positions?

Yes, absolutely. I am very much not pro-abortion. In an ideal world no abortions would take place, but this is not an ideal world and I think that the immense importance of empowering women outweighs your concerns. Especially in the face of Islamic infiltration of modern civilization.

37. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254607 by Serdan on September 26, 2008 at 2:09 am

Fanusi,

Well, one reason I can think of is if it endangers the mother's life. This also addresses Serdan's point, btw. The product of rape would probably qualify.

Sacrifice does not necessarily have to result in death. At which point can you justify the sacrifice of the mother's rights and freedom? Not to mention the unnecessary distress a forced pregnancy may cause.

38. Zehirli Yilanlar, Kaygan Yilanbaliklari ve Harun Yahya

Comment #254599 by Serdan on September 26, 2008 at 2:01 am

isthatclear,

HAPPENED THROUGH DEAF, BLIND, UNCONSCIOUIS CHANCES AND LUCK?

Another lie for Jesus?

Oh wait, that one's an old lie.

39. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254593 by Serdan on September 26, 2008 at 1:52 am

Fanusi,

The reason I'm anti-abortion, hawt, is that I cannot see any moral standard by which it is ethical to sacrifice one human life to another. I can understand every point you make, yet I can still not agree, because that's the line that can't be crossed.

But it is okay to sacrifice the mother for the embryo?

40. Russian woman put on trial in Dubai for drinking juice in public

Comment #254582 by Serdan on September 26, 2008 at 1:31 am

NoXion,

Yes it does. Societies that don't punish murder don't last for long compared to societies that do. Humans are social beings, and therefore need a stable society. Therefore it is in the objective interests of both society and the individual for murder to be prohibited.

Unless someone was interested in bringing down society...

EDIT: I find it rather amusing that you say "punish murder", instead of "prevent murder".

41. Russian woman put on trial in Dubai for drinking juice in public

Comment #254569 by Serdan on September 26, 2008 at 12:34 am

No, but that doesn't make it objective.

42. Russian woman put on trial in Dubai for drinking juice in public

Comment #254564 by Serdan on September 26, 2008 at 12:08 am

The War on Drugs is as irrational as this juice law, if not more so.

NoXion,

Breaking an unjust or irrational law is perfectly acceptable, because a law has to have a reasonable basis in order to be valid. There are objective reasons for rape and murder to be illegal. There are no objective reasons for eating during Ramadan while being non-Muslim to be illegal.

I'm surprized that no one has called you on this yet, but... objective reasons?

43. Secular schools of thought tainted

Comment #253828 by Serdan on September 25, 2008 at 12:31 am

j.mills,

Point of order: devil-worshippers do worship the devil (duh!), but the (separate) Church of Satan denies there are any supernatural beings at all. To them, Satan is a symbol of the rebel, the adversary, a role they aspire to; he's not an actual entity, so logically it's not a religion, it's a philosophy.

So belief in a supernatural entity is the only requirement for something to be called a religion?

KRKBAB,

well, not exactly- I've looked into this a bit. It's like EVERY OTHER RELIGION- some, or maybe even most don't believe in Satan as a supernatural being- but SOME DO. That same "make it what ever you want to" crap exists also in Satanism- otherwise it would be a very cool thing, as it ALMOST is.

"well, not exactly- I've looked into this a bit. It's like EVERY OTHER SUPERSTITION- some, or maybe even most don't believe in ghosts as actual entities- but SOME DO. That same "make it what ever you want to" crap exists also in Atheism- otherwise it would be a very cool thing, as it ALMOST is."

Besides, j.mills specifically mentioned the Church of Satan, so you fail.

44. Without God

Comment #253157 by Serdan on September 24, 2008 at 6:43 am

Bonzai, what is the function of your "I"?

45. Without God

Comment #253131 by Serdan on September 24, 2008 at 5:52 am

void I()
{
while (alive)
{
data input = GetInput();
data[] decisions = Think(input);
Act(decisions);
}
}

Did I leave anything out?

46. Faith schools may be Blair's most damaging legacy

Comment #241630 by Serdan on September 2, 2008 at 11:06 pm

beanson,
"By the way are Satanists allowed to run schools now?"

They already do. It's called home schooling. No Satanist would expose his/her own child to this lunacy.

Also, where's V when you need him?

47. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #241542 by Serdan on September 2, 2008 at 1:19 pm

I would laugh if it wasn't so worrying.

We have a token white convert apologist in Denmark too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Wahid_Pedersen

What the English article doesn't state is that he was part of the delegation which riled up muslims against the Danish cartoons.

What a joke it is.

48. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #241533 by Serdan on September 2, 2008 at 1:04 pm

al-rawandi,

Yup. Exactly what I was getting at. What struck me about the documentary was that they would go to great lengths to explain the nature of those two-faced bastards, and then go ask a "respected Islamic scholar" what s/he thought about it. That "respected Islamic scholar" would of course talk like a "moderate muslim", but how can we know?

49. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #241524 by Serdan on September 2, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Just watched this.

How to tell whether a muslim is being honest or lying?

50. Friend or Foe? Crows Never Forget a Face, It Seems

Comment #241481 by Serdan on September 2, 2008 at 11:21 am

qomak,
"Did people who passed by the crows know their mask was neutral or dangerous?"

They probably knew what the experiment was about, but they weren't told which kind of mask they were given.

More Pages: 1 2 3 | Next