51. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189403 by MaxD on June 6, 2008 at 7:52 am

Appleby

One of the reasons why many parts of the world reject homosexuality is because it technically opens the door to the acceptance of other things as well

Your evidence of this is what precisely? You have just pulled something out of your ass. I know of many religious reasons for rejecting homosexuality, there are lots post-hoc justifications for what is basically an irrational revulision that is probably induced when young. Christian fundies are forever trying to make the same lame connections you make with obvious pathologies.

(e.g. bestiality, which all of you argue is somehow completely different and unrelated).

We have shown you why it is unrelated.
1. We hold, even with animals we are about to eat that their lives ought to be lived with a minimum of suffering, fear and pain. As such animals are not simply our playthings, they feel pain, fear, anxiety etc. As such this removes them from the sex partner docket because such uses would no doubt cause most of them such reactions, fear etc.

2. Animals cannot give consent (except perhaps some of the other great apes). Psychology, medicine, perhaps your own empathy, has shown, or shows that this act is key to ethical sex. If there is no consent there is just one form of rape or another.
Now while some amorous female gorilla might like you Appleby, it would probably be unethical of you to act on it. There is an unequal power/maturity relationship there and you would, as is your way, be taking advantage of an undeveloped mind. This is the reason why we don't let adults just go pounding away at 10-15 year olds, and why we suggest that, among themselves they wait till they are older. They are not mentally ready deal with the emotional roller coaster.

3. (My own speculation)Consistent use of animals for sexual gratification is likely the result of a pathological mental state and not the result of an attraction per se. It demonstrates an inability to interact with other humans. It is a vehicle of need, and conveniance. Though perhaps there is a whole world of sexual humilation play of which I am unaware. In any event even if we decided that the desire to have sex with animals wasn't the result of a negative mental state we have ruled it out with the first and second points.

A point anticipated: You may say "well maybe the homo-mind is in a pathological state too. Heh, heh." (I'm not sure exactly how you would phrase it.) Sadly for you this is not the case, at least according to any medical association or psychological association I can find. So you are going to have to overturn what the preponderance of experts say.

We have shown you why your arguments in this fail, and fail spectacularly.

This is hypocrisy in my book. How you pick up your magical pen and draw the magical line between hetero/homo and bestiality is beyond me.

This last line from you is just stupid and must be called such. The only one making spurious arguments on this thread is you. Noone here has utilized the magic pens. There is no moral/ethical argument-as yet-against homosexuality. We have shown a few ways in which bestiality isn't morally equivalent to consentual human sex. We have used evidence from psychology of both humans and animals, and made moral argument based on that knowledge.

You have relied largely on poor analogies, gut feelings, and diversion. In essence you tried to justify what is a base an irrational and unexamined fear with bullshit and we just exposed your steaming mass of nonsense.

52. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189287 by MaxD on June 6, 2008 at 12:16 am

Mitchell Gilks,

And thus provide an ethical/moral basis for rejecting prolonged such treatments to our fellow beasties.

53. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189283 by MaxD on June 6, 2008 at 12:01 am

Appleby,
Also, you ought to knock the linkage of homosexuality and bestiality off too. We've all rejected it and shown why. This is actually a Fundamentalist trick and misses the point. Actually it just muddies the discussion. This is of course your point.

54. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189279 by MaxD on June 5, 2008 at 11:55 pm

Appleby,
I can't see how male homosexuality-your main hangup- can be considered wrong, or as you say "not right." Why isn't female homosexuality wrong to you? You are terribly inconsistent here and you do need to think this through just the tiniest bit more.

In any case, you need to stop using terms like aberant. As bonzai has pointed out, there is a great deal that is done against "nature." I presume when you are lovingly breaking in the new women you are using protection or some birth control method? If so you are doing something wrong then?

How then do you decide what is right? Nature might urge us to do some unpleasant things you say, and indeed are correct. By what lights are they wrong? By the fact that we infringe on another's autonomy and cause pain by such acts. (I would be willing to bet that in bestieality the animals in question undergo similar ossilations in hormone outputs that we would call fear reactions). So in your example we see the embedded criteria by we which we judge actions moral or immoral.

55. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189268 by MaxD on June 5, 2008 at 11:37 pm

Exclusive bestiality is likely a pathological mental state in that indicates and inability to form normal human bonds.

It does not involve the consent of another being, and there is certainly an unequal relationship.

Homosexuality again addresses the consent issue we have already stated. Adults interacting with other adults in more or less adult ways.

Since you are talking in terms of aberant you are already working from the naturalistic fallacy anyway. Say heterosexuality were the absolute norm and homosexuals made up one percent of one percent one percent of any human population would that then make their actions, or feelings wrong?

I noticed when it was said that it seems to be a common and natural part of human sexuality you rattled off with "naturalistic fallacy anyone?"

How then is using aberancy not using the same logic?

56. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189264 by MaxD on June 5, 2008 at 11:27 pm

Appleby,

I am unsure you need to start there as you are stepping, philosophically into a can of worms that needn't be opened in this discussion. You have yet to show that homosexual parents would be more detrimental to kids than heterosexual parents. Specifically your original claims were that homosexual males may be some kinda' dangerous to the wee ones.

There is as yet no reason to presume that such worries are valid other than your own concern about having to suck your own dick after anally plugging someone. This in any circle is uncommon I think as requires either yoga mastery, or massive membership. So you still have yet to justify what is at its base an irrational concern or fear-your homophobia.

Like all homophobes you try to bring up tangential, unrelated issues that do not address the basic conscent issues that exist between two (or more) adults. You do this because you have nothing really important to say on the subject.

Is there any reason to believe that homosexual males pose a danger to any children they have had through previous hetero couplings, or any adoptive children they may aquire. You throw up a great deal of Bondian smoke sceen because the answer to this questions seems to be a two letter, one syllable word begining with N.

I will leave it to your oafish offices to figure out what that word might be.

57. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189260 by MaxD on June 5, 2008 at 11:12 pm

Righton,
When you said that, you were of course correct sir!

58. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189241 by MaxD on June 5, 2008 at 10:22 pm

Reverend,
I think the moment came when Txpiper said Tiktaalik was just a fish. It was at that point I thought hmmmmmm this guy knows nothing and will try to, sans expertise, to change definitions, and in fact just make shit up to make his case that that evolutionary theory is weak in some regard.

He has no idea why Tiktaalik is an important find, or seeing that it is in fact important, and the that the method of such discoveries damns his case entirely, choses to ignore the importance, and significance of it. This is utterly tedious as is his triumphalism. How many times must he be kicked in his intellectual testes before he realizes he has no case.

Flood geology for instance cannot account for the kind of predictablity that we see in the fossil record. It just doesn't have those kind of chops. What we see in the record is actually predicted by evolutionary theory. This alone dooms any literalist reading of Christian mythology. In fact, as anyone who has read Genesis knows, all such literal readings are doomed by everything that we do know about the Cosmos. Anyone who would cling, in the face of the overwelming evidence, to such views I think has marginalized themselves from the adult table.

59. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189114 by MaxD on June 5, 2008 at 1:36 pm

MitchellGilks,
you said way back,

Just as killing someone in self-defence is not moral, but it is justified

This seems like a strange stance to take, and I was wondering if you would mind unpacking it a bit. Or if you have already point me to the comment.
Thanks.

60. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #188327 by MaxD on June 3, 2008 at 11:06 pm

Txpiper,
About the fossils actually there is no shortage. What is neat about the book that reviews the find of Tiktaalik is that it describes several instances of paleontologists actually predicting what strata they might find the origin (or close to it) of any particular structure.

This is so damaging to your case I am surprised that you haven't realized it. Using the modern understanding of evolutionary paleontology Shubin and his team knew in what strata to look. Paleontologists do this all the time. Hmmmmm, we want to find the transiition from jawless to jawed fishes well we know jaws appear here, and we know agnaths seem to be here lets look between such and such a time and such and such a time.

This ends flood geology nonsense because it cannot account for the precision of assuming a longer period of time on earth and nor can it account for the way fossils are laid out in the geological column. You can continue to claim there is an embarassment of riches only because as usual you have no idea about what you are talking.
You are being tedious in the extreme and this mewling about the fossil record is yet another example of your inability to accept evidence.

(EDIT) Tiktaalik is a beautiful find because it is a stunning specimen. At the natural history museum where I worked in college, we have one of the most complete skeletons of Castroides ohioensis, a giant beaver of the Pleistocene. They had been well known from lesser specimens, but ours is one of two really complete skeletons. Such specimens are huge finds for a museum because, A. such completeness is not as common as we would like, and B. we could trade casts of our beaver for casts of other specialties.

It is also important to discuss with lay audiences how such things are found. In this way and many others, tiktaalik is a special and awesome find.

61. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188325 by MaxD on June 3, 2008 at 10:55 pm

Appleby,

Anyway, yes, I prefer virgin (human) females. I see nothing wrong with that. In my experience, they're "tighter", humbler, more tactful and won't try to compare me with the other men they've slept with. And I enjoy teaching them to make up for their lack of experience. It's not just about them pleasuring me. Does having this preference make me a misogynist? I'd settle for old-fashioned (not in the negative sense) but certainly not religious. It has nothing to do with that in my case.

From this bit of honesty we learn a great deal about your spectacular hypocrisy.

It isn't just about pleasuring you? No there is also that bit about having a play thing who won't bruise your ego when she makes some comparisson.

Also we see that you don't mind having sex and that is cool, but that you are more than mildly picky about your potential partner's history. Why is it okay for you to have sex and not chicks? You enjoy teaching them through their lack of experience?
Man you are bizarre.

62. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #188324 by MaxD on June 3, 2008 at 10:48 pm

MEmmanuel,
What is it with you guys and bible quotes. Would you find anything I said compelling if I added a Koran quote, or some Norse saying at the end of my blurb?

You have to realize that most people here think that the bible is pretty spotty on actual history and that its mythology is no more compelling than any other cultures when evidence is examined.

You are wasting time and space trying to make your case for God by pointed to a somewhat biased book.

But allow me to suggest some reading for you.
The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan.
Cosmos by the same author will also tickled the mind. From there you may be ready for something more challenging.

63. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187846 by MaxD on June 2, 2008 at 8:59 pm

Appleby is strange.

Talk about straw men. I'm actually glad to hear the viewpoint of a homosexual.

Sadly for you this wasn't a strawman. This analogy works wonderfully and has essentially recapitulated the entireity of your, ahem, logic. That you cannot see this does not bode well for the rest of your post.

Before I continue, I would ask that you don't read the rest of this post with the preconception that I'm a homophobe or bigot. It tends to skew one's objectivity.

This would of course be vastly easier without the history of the rest of your posts haunting you. The strange homosexual/organutan comparisons, the "maybe they are animals less than human," questions, and your general antipathy toward any contrary evidence tends to damage your crediblity more than somewhat.

The problem, I think, with homosexuals like you is that you have become too complacent in the fact that you should not be discriminated (I don't like this word but am forced to use it) against under any circumstances despite the obvious fact that you are different from heterosexuals.

Now insert the word black or jewish everywhere you see the word homosexual and you will begin to see how silly this sounds.

"You blacks have become to complacent with the fact that you shouldn't be discriminated against..."

How pathetic.

Now don't read too deeply into this and assume I think you are necessarily inferior in every way (or even some ways). There are homosexuals I actually envy.

Homosexuals aren't necessarily inferior in every way? I know you tried to soften that statement but it is just as clear that you hold the matter even that openly in your mind.

All it means is that when you claim to be equal to heterosexuals (in say the right to adopt children), the onus is still on you to convince us why.

No it isn't. Humans are all granted the same rights in western democracies, and can only have those rights limited when it is proven that there is something to worry about. There is no reason to deny homosexuals anything according to the US constitution. You are the one is making the strong claim not the homosexuals. They are just saying, "Hello none pathological humans here."

To say that *we* (i.e. heterosexuals) must first prove you are not fit for adopting children on the grounds of your homosexuality is being disingenuous.

Hey buddy, don't go dragging me into the this parade. I am a heterosexual but I clearly think you are shithouse-rat loony and want no part of your case. It really isn't on them to prove anything, and nor is it disingenuous to say so. You are making the strong claim so where does th onus lie?

And, I wonder, do you really have the welfare of the child in mind as a top priority over the interests of exercising your "right" to adopt it?

This question could just as easily be turned around on you. What we know is that there are vastly more kids up for adoption than there are parents willing to adopt, or who can adopt. That you would bar access to a group of people that show no demonstrable risk to children outstriping that of any heterosexual couple, you are denying a kid access to a loving home based on some gut worries, and some ATM fantasies gone awry.

And if not, just how much of the latter reason plays into your intention of adopting said child? This is a question, by the way, not an accusation.

Hmmm, I am left to wonder who is being disingenuous now....
I am just going to say that any couple that jumps through the inordinate amount of hoops necessary to adopt are doing it because they really want to adopt a kid and not simply excercise their rights. Whether the entireity of the homosexual community wants to adopt in this historical instance or not has no negative implications for said community.

We have reached a stage in the West where it is apparently much too offensive for these questions to be even asked.

Not quite. You will notice that while liberals by and large are pro-gay rights, there are plenty in the US at least that ask these questions, and have their eyes just as effectively blinkered to see only what they want.

The fact is that since homosexuality is no longer pathologized (You will not find it as such in medical journals, or in the current DSM as such), or as strictly demonized among religious circles. So according to psychologists and doctors homosexuals are not dangerous. As such the onus now is on you to prove otherwise.

Much like religion, I suspect some homosexuals (perhaps like you) are hoping for the day when homosexuals and all their "rights" become incontestable. Even in principle, I think this is not a good attitude. And I don't assume the rights of heterosexuals to be incontestable. You, as homosexual, are free to contest any of them and demand we provide evidence to substantiate said rights when it is a deviation from the status quo.

To such a contest one must have metrics well defined, and evidence to back up ones case. Serious, scientific effort.

64. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187838 by MaxD on June 2, 2008 at 8:18 pm

Appleby made this weird comparison again when he said:

Between homosexual and heterosexual parenting? Are you serious? Perhaps I should also assume being raised by orangutans is equal until proven otherwise.

This is yet another instance of comparing homosexual human beings to a non-human great ape. I'm not sure why you keep doing this and can only assume it is meant only to be inflammatory.

Of course we would make the assumption that human parenting would be different than that of an Orangutan. They are different species. There is little reason to assume that humans of any stripe parent radically differently.

We might assume that would be subtle differences, but that could only be borne out by serious study. In any event there would be no reason to suspect a homosexual couple of any greater risk than a straight couple.

But you keep saying that you think the risk is too great. So do you have any idea what these risks might be? I bet you have an idea, maybe ideas. Go ahead and explain it.

65. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #187833 by MaxD on June 2, 2008 at 7:51 pm

Lastgreekstanding,
Its good to know that you are not ashamed of anything you have written so far. However you really should apologize for insulting me over my correct usage of English.

And you just need to admit you were wrong about the use of the prefix un. Unserious is a fine word, and conforms to the rules of English.

You sought to insult me based on some -imagined-errant usage of a pre-fix. If you will look above, you will see all the instances in which the prefix un may be used.

I doubt you will apologize, but you need to at least admit that you are wrong.

66. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #187203 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Txpiper said an obtuse thing when his fingers managed this:

Worse than that, they have to talk how these things function without using the word "intelligence

We don't need to talk about intelligence because there is no indication that anything other than natural processes are involved. You are going to have to show, with evidence, not your biologically illiterate ramblings and incredulity of an entire successful field of science.

Simply saying, as you do, "Golly-gee I don't see how cichlid biology is at all helpful to understanding human biology" (or any other such simple minded formulation) won't do the trick.

Allow me to submit to you Txpiper that you have come and your faith is still intact. You have failed to legitamately engage anyone here and that you would perhaps have more fun talking about the intelligent designer on one of those websites. You are not actually interested in listening to anyone here regardless of what they have to say, and you are not honestly engaged in this discussion.

Please go read about real biology, go take some classes without your ideology looking over your shoulder, I mean openly learn the subject. Then you will have a better idea what it is you are talking about.

67. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187193 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 1:15 pm

I am trying to find mustard-bars and clubs and perhaps a nice mustards-only suburb.

So alone in mustardy sin......

68. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187180 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Quetz,
You forgot to add, "and totally immaterial" to anything else Appleby has suggested.

69. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187178 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Man I thought my mustard metaphor would get a laugh out of Colwyn, but I guess he is disgusted by my openness about my mustard love.

70. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #187176 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Txpiper,
What is your degree in again? Oh yeah. Not biology, not molecular biology, not chemistry. So what do you know about molecular biology? I mean other than the junk you are fed from your creationist websites?

Oh yeah....
Nothing.

I must reiterate, you are not on to something. You, if you knew more than a few words like reverse transcription, you'd see that these the phenomena are not all that when viewed in conjuntion with the rest of biology. Engrossing, sure. But nothing in biology seems so improbable when you look at the rest of the biota. I know you think it does. But you have to admit you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
Just say as follows.
I believe in Jesus. This is my faith. Science doesn't back me up, or provide any evidence for the events of the gospels whatsoever. Its a faith issue. I hope it is true and am convicted in my heart that it is. It is how I live my life.
That is all you have, and if it works for you,then fine. But please stop the pretense that you have overturned all of biology with your pre-undergraduate level mistakes of biology.

71. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187174 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Quezt,
I'll dig up the papers to which I am refering and send them your way. I don't find them helpful in the least to anything Appleby wants to say but they are interesting.

72. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187168 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 11:52 am

Homosexual males do tend to engage in casual sex more than straight males. (Though this is likely because females are not as inclined to seek casual/annoymous sex as males, and straight males are just as open to the idea of casual/annoynous sex as gay males, but their partern of choice-females- don't share the same pattern.) Female homosexuality, appears, when last I read about this, to enjoy higher rates of fidelity than either homosexual or heterosexual couples.

73. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187161 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 11:47 am

Corylus,
Wonderful post.

74. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187158 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 11:45 am

Most sexual abuse done to foster kids is perpetrated by heterosexual men. I don't know what the abuse looks like for adoptive kids. If I had to speculate I'd say it was less of an issue as the hoops people have to jump through probably weed out bad applicants, unless you are Woody Allen I guess.

Infidelity is a growing concern on both sides of the hetero/homo divide. It doesn't matter so much if the parents can break up sans as much acrimony as possible. Though if fidelity is a concern of yours perhaps we should only let lesbian couples adopt as they seem to have more successful, longer term relationships than eithe gay or straight couples.

In their own communities? Of course, we've all seen how successful isolation of communities works, what understanding, caring and trust that creates. WHat utter rubbish. I am sure you can share your "jokes" with your gay neighbors and probably pick up a few new gems in return.

75. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187146 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 11:13 am

Colwyn,
I like mustard.

Does colwyn have a right to limit my public uses of mustard because he finds it loathesome? Can I hold hands with my mustard? Can I cuddle in public with my mustard, maybe give it a serious smootch every once inwhile? Like everybody seems to be allowed to do with that more common Ketschup? Eh? Why do I have stay in the closet with my mustard eh?

76. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187145 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 11:10 am

Appleby,
Do you wish homosexuals did not live in your communities, or that they should be barred from adopting children? You brought those up so I thought you might have something to say about that.

77. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187143 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 11:07 am

Appleby,
No one is saying you have to like or appreciate anything. I just think you are falling victim an error of thinking. Namely that an act that doesn't appeal to you is coloring your view of a group of people baselessly. And that your disgust is unexamined as it must be since you engage in heterosexual versions of the same acts you find disgusting.

78. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187141 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 11:03 am

That is fine. Disgusting to you.

It still leaves a little unexplained. Take Col, I presume he hates mustard in every setting. Not on hot dogs, not on burgers or chicken. It is just anathema to his gustatory happiness. Disgusting all the time. However he doesn't begrude me my love of it, or think that mustard is categorically vile, it is just not for him. Nor does he find me disgusting because I like mustard.
Wouldn't you find him just the tiniest bit odd if he thought that way.

I was tryign to get a sense if you feel the latter way about homosexuals. They are disgusting, or just that guy on guy backdoor extravaganzas don't appeal to you.

79. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187134 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 10:52 am

It was strangely explicit.

But you don't find the act of putting your own member in your girl friends back door disgusting? Its the same act. Why is it disgusting in one instance and a fine heavenly act in another?

It seems such a strong reaction to something you do to your girlfriend.

80. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187132 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 10:47 am

AllanW,
Sometimes just showing that one hasn't thought through a prejudice is a great service. Also, trying to understand another's thoughts, especailly if you don't understand how such thoughts are entertained is a valuable service to yourself.

Though I understand the frustration.

81. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187128 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 10:33 am

I agree with you about the naturalistic fallacy.

However, most people were tying to justify the disgust by saying it was unatural, etc. They were trying to justify their gut reaction after they had it. "It unnatrual" is still a common critique among the religious.

It is also simply untrue that people who are gay leave no offspring. Many people who engage in homosexual sex also have a rather lively heterosexual life too. It is possible that being strictly gay and strictly heterosexual are ends on the same curve with more adventurous sexualities inbetween.

Saying you find the actions of two adults (at least!) acting in the privacy of their own making disgusting is not explained by saying you are straight. Why is it disgusting? I don't find it interesting, but I am not disgusted by such things. Why are you disgusted? This is not the same as finding something disagreeable to personal taste.

82. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187125 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 10:19 am

The history of anti-homosexual stances seems to spring somewhat from religious attitudes. It was for a long time considered deviant, then it was disorder, but seems to be largely considered a well represented sexual phenomena throught the animal kingdom, and seems well represented in our own group the Primates.
Homosexuals seem no more prone to ill action than heterosexuals at least not in any literature I've ever read on the subject.

Why do you find homosexuality disgusting? You don't find female homosexuality disgusting?
Just curious.
(EDIT: What parts of male homosexuality offend you? It maybe good to look at your prejudices, and think through the rationales you think you have. Often people reason about their prejuidices retroactively. They have a dislike that they try to justify after they have felt the twinge of outrage. This is not a good way to reason morally.)

83. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187118 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 10:05 am

Appleby asked,

Do I think homosexual men should be discriminated against? Well, discriminated against in what way exactly?

You are the one who asked about being able to countance some discrimantion if homosexuals could be found to more animal than human. So you must have something in mind or I have misunderstood the question.

I presume you have some idea about homosexuals, or you were using it to see if any one here would countance some discrimination. I suppose most of us, if the danger were great enough, and occured in a sufficiently high proportion of a said group would countance some discrimination.

Here is a non-inflammatory example. There are probably fairly friendly grizzly bears that would not, unless provoked attack humans. But the danger over the years seems of a sufficiently high nature that we try to limit the interactions of grizzly bears and humans. Bears are bears and humans tend to do things that offend bear sensiblities and this gets humans wrecked.

Bears thus have a suite of behavioral characteristics that makes interaction with humans somewhat problematic at best. So for any discriminatory policy one would have to show that the dangers were great enough, and constant enough to warrant such action. This is one way to overcome the more moral, well I don't want to judge an individual by the statitiscal average of its group, and will rather give the individual the benefit of the doubt stance.

84. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187110 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 9:51 am

Appleby,
Humans are animals. Just thought I would clear that up.
Humans and Orangutans
There are of course the obvious differences in anatomy. Intelligence seems quite different between the two, genetically we are not quite as close to Orangs as we are to Gorillas, and chimps. Though in key ways we share quite a lot of mental attributes that cause most educated people to treat our fellow great apes with greater respect and care than we do other animals. Sentience, sophisticated emotions seem to be things we share with the other great apes.

Now are you saying that homosexuals are akin to orangs in differences with the rest of the human family?

85. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187100 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 9:43 am

Epeeist,
Indeed it could be cultural baggage. From what I've read of recent trends I doubt it. But it is really quite immaterial to the point I was trying to make.

I simply think that whatever trends we find in groups it is more or less useless to prejudge individuals by the statistical average of their groups. For instance I don't think many women would make it through intense forward combat arms military designations. But not many men do either. Navy SEALs, Rangers, Delta, Marine Force Recon, are programs with huge attrition rates. But I feel if a woman makes it through basic and satisfies the pre-qualifications she should get a shot if she wants it. She may wash out, but hell 90% of the applicants to these programs washout.

86. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187093 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 9:31 am

Appleby,
I will not answer your question until you answer mine.

87. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187091 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 9:30 am

Appleby,
Do you think that homosexual men should be discriminated against? And if so why?
They tend to be superior to heterosexual males in terms of earning power. That is gay men tend to make more, on average than straight men.

The comparisson is pointless any way as to say X group is superior to Y group would be to make an almost infinite list of comparative data, and then some how arrange this data hierarchically by importance (who decides and by what criteria is this decided) and then compared.

What we know already indicates what a pointless endeavor this would be. At the same time it assumes there is something good and moral about consigning individuals, who you will remember vary enourmously within groups, to some statistical average of their group.

88. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187082 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 9:22 am

Appleby,
I am afraid the whole notion of consigning individuals into casts, roles, duties of one kind or another based on some statistical average of their group is a remarkably evil idea.

Individuals vary within groups much more wildly than between groups. That is between groups there is not a great deal of statistically significant difference, but with in groups of there is a great deal of variation. This stands up it seems time and again. This is one reason why it is useless to suppose one group is better than any other across the board.

Between men and women there do seem to be major differences physically, and mentally in statistically significant ways. Men tend to carry more muscle mass to fat, men tend to be more aggressive and competitive than women, men seem to be able to reason spatially better than women, whereas women tend to be far and away better at communications, and relational reasoning. There also appear to be different preferances for interaction in profession between the sexes. While men and women seem to be equally talented in sciences there does seem to be difference in the kinds of science the two sexes want to practice. Look at demographics in science by major and you find more males in hard sciences that require little interaction with other humans or animals, and then look at the life sciences and you see women out number or at least equal the men in biology, psychology and anthropology.
It would appear that both sexes are quite capable of performing in a wide array of fields equally but that there may be real differences in preferance of field.
For an excellent review of our current understanding of these trends see Pinker's The Blank Slate.

In any event the group trends tell us nothing about why, necessarily, they exist, or do any more than hint (sometimes in a very minor way, and sometimes in a major way)at what we might expect of an individual.

I guess Appleby, I'd want to know what you meant by something as subjective as "superior?" Do you mean men are better than women at everything?

89. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187067 by MaxD on June 1, 2008 at 8:58 am

Epeeist,
Here is something you might like.
I buy all my knives from Cold Steel, anyway enjoy.
This seems like a good product. This guy isn't a European sword stylist but he makes some good western style products.
Or his company does anyway!

90. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186907 by MaxD on May 31, 2008 at 6:16 pm

AthiestAspy,

Yes, many atheists do in fact replace one dogma for another.

Maybe but simply saying it doesn't make it so.

In my experience, atheists care way more about politics than their religious counterparts and tend to be more dogmatic when it comes to political issues.

Luckily personal anecdotes don't count for much. In any event this seems like a silly statement given what newspapers, and polling data suggest. Religious people are hugely political and your statement of equivocation sounds a wee bit like the silly meanderings through PC land.

If you disagree with them or are even slightly apathetic about politics they tend assume something's wrong with you.

More personal anecdote I think and pointless. I find that people who are passionate about politics whether religious or not tend to have heaps of scorn for the politically apathetic.

Even when the person ends up having fewer beliefs to be dogmatic about, it seems they "make up" for the lost dogma by being even more dogmatic about their remaining beliefs.

Uh....proof? You may be right but lets see some data.

Where do I get my ideas about atheists? Personal experience and empirical data. I've seen data showing that atheists donate less time and money to charity and have more emotional problems, for instance.

Firstly I think there are huge problems with the study on "donations to charity." What is charity? Are all charities considered? What about the fact that many secularists are more than happy to see their tax dollars go to social saftey net programs of a wide variety of types. When taken into account it will likely be that both sides are similar. Though maybe not, atheists seem to do better at marriage than born agains.

Care to point to this "more psychological problems" paper(s)?

That could be due to demographics since atheists are disproportionally young males. Or could be that smart people tend to be smug. (/blockquote>
Hmmmm papers please? Let me see the primary research on the first claim on disproportional young male representation please.

There was also my AP European History teacher I mentioned and many others who've convinced me that a disproportionate number of atheists are smug political activists.

Care to unpack the reasons and not bore us with the worthless stand alone lament?

I think people are dogmatic in general, atheists being no exception.

I know this PC complaint certainly seems dogmatic.

91. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #186528 by MaxD on May 30, 2008 at 1:59 pm

The Zara is absolutely right about this. Many of the research "institutes" haveing to do with ID require employees to take an vow, or oath type thing saying they believe the universe was created by God as in the Bible. The Institute for Creation Research has this policy. Though this institution is more balls out creationism.
intelligentdesign.org is frontish website for the clearly Christian Discovery Institute. (edit: the majority of IDers are religious so why the ruse?)

It is a wedge, and it is not science.

92. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #186526 by MaxD on May 30, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Al,
Adopting some socialist plans wouldn't necessarily constitute a hatred for rich people. Of course we all hate dishonest rich people, but that says nothing about whether a socialist policy would be more beneficial or less than free markets on a particular commodity.

93. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186522 by MaxD on May 30, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Phil,
No problem, but don't let it happen again or there will be trouble!

94. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186505 by MaxD on May 30, 2008 at 12:18 pm

PhilR,
Do you have a copy of the post that you deleted, if so by all means pm it my way.

I think Txpipers 10 minutes in the penalty box are up. So said being may return to the floor.

95. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186439 by MaxD on May 30, 2008 at 9:40 am

Txpiper,
You spewed:

I can appreciate your predicament. You have to contend with obvious and inevitable teleological considerations somehow. It seems that the only way the theorists are able to manage this dilemma is by granting wisdom and discretionary authority to the selection process. Nice try, but concepts cannot think.

I've had about all your, "I've dismantled evolutionary biology" triumphalism I can stand. And inbedded in whoopers like this is a level of absolute ignornance to which I am not often obliged to bear witness.

No one is saying that selection thinks. Saying something like "Selection decides" is a fucking short hand my dishonest unfriend. It means that organism x has adaptation y (and in the case above) which, while shortening x's life enables said organism to leave more descendents than conspecifics without adaptation y.
See no thought.
Fucking short hand.
Dishonest creationist penalty. In the box for 10.

96. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186393 by MaxD on May 30, 2008 at 8:41 am

Txpiper bleeted,

Well wouldn't I be rude to dismantle evolution and offer nothing sane to believe in?

I believe things are in descent having begun in perfection. Evolution is trying to say that organisms have ascended to where they are now from a single cell by way of mutations. I believe living organisms are in a downward spiral.

Well isn't that precious. I know people who believe they have been abducted by aliens. Their evidence for this proposition is as good as yours for "created in perfection." By that of course I mean it is non-existent.

You have as it happens not made a single serious argument here, and your objections to every peice of evidence offered can be distilled into the following phrase.
"I just cannot believe that."

And the utter narcissism infused in the statement "Well I wouldn't want to be rude and dismantle evolution and offer nothing sane to believe in," is easily one of the dumbest things you've yet said. This actually is a huge accomplishment for you.

You have essentially come to this site to see if your ability to ignore the salient facts, can withstand reasoned and cogent arguements. You may go happy and assured that you are capable of ignore any of the actual science and that your belief in global floods will be unmarred by anything pesky like evidentiary process, reason and logic.

What is sad is that the realy science of biology is out there and not terribly hard for dedicated laymen to understand. But you aren't interested in that, or the real science of Evolutionary biology. You are interested in shoring up your bronze age beliefs.

Bald assertions, incredulity and ignorance do not counter arguements make.
Good Day.

97. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185940 by MaxD on May 29, 2008 at 7:09 am

Fighting Falcon said:

Canada and Europe are so incredibly tolerant that they crush any dissent against tolerance by force. The irony is certainly not lost on me.

Sadly the irony is lost on those in positions of power in Canada and Europe

98. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185937 by MaxD on May 29, 2008 at 6:58 am

I think my picture shouts out "you want a piece of me?!!" More.

99. We happy hooligans

Comment #185933 by MaxD on May 29, 2008 at 6:46 am

Manic Depressive,
No worries.

The problem though is that theologians by and large, except for maybe Tillich, want to have that God is the ground of all being Cake and they want little of the Jesus Magic Elixir cake too.

McGrath seems fairly standard in his christian beliefs when you get him to state them plainly-which is not at all easy because if stated plainly, they don't look terribly less silly. He just seems to be more secularized than his fundi bretheren.

I've found this in my limited encounters with theologians.

By all means though if Theologians want to reduce god to simply meaning something like "mystery in the universe and attendent phenomena" I say go to it too. Theologians of this sort though tend to be largely ignored by the traditionally pious.

100. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #185877 by MaxD on May 28, 2008 at 11:42 pm

Mordicacious1,
I've not heard anything about cars. But windows are often horrible killers of birders. Window kills really helped our collections at the Natural History Musesum I worked at in College.

Feral, and free roaming cats are positively notorious bird killers. Habitat loss ain't too grand either.