251. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188056 by AllanW on June 3, 2008 at 7:23 am

Appleby; you plainly have time to further this discussion but refuse to spend time distancing yourself from your libel of me.

Do I take it that your position is that you have nothing to retract? A simple statement would suffice.

252. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188040 by AllanW on June 3, 2008 at 7:08 am

Comment #188030 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 7:00 am

I have. Comment #187943.

You misrepresented it in comments 187926, 187446 and 187440.

Retract, please. Then cease and desist.

253. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188027 by AllanW on June 3, 2008 at 6:58 am

So now you've returned to this thread, Appleby, are you willing to retract your libel? Do you accept that you misrepresented my views? Will you refrain from using my name as a justification for conflating homosexuality and bestiality, please?

I'm sure we're all waiting for your response.

254. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187989 by AllanW on June 3, 2008 at 5:40 am

Agreed Rachel. My problem is further that he started off with a need to draw lines, segregate, distinguish between people. I know it is not a straight line but the tendency for people with that mindset is to draw the line ever closer to themselves and exclude more and more people.

I'm sure your example of people with mental health problems being abused or excluded could eventually be seen by such misfits as justifiable ('Well, they're not much more than animals are they? And I already decided it's ok to abuse animals. right?').

255. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187984 by AllanW on June 3, 2008 at 5:30 am

'The Mayor of Bayswater he had a pretty daughter ..'

256. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187954 by AllanW on June 3, 2008 at 4:43 am

Comment #187951 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 4:39 am

I have made my position abundantly clear. You persist in your misrepresentation of my views and have failed to retract your libel.

I have reserved all of my options in this matter.

257. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187949 by AllanW on June 3, 2008 at 4:36 am

Appleby; Feeling a little nervous? You really should. My ass is covered.

I'm sure that any reading of my words will support my statements and will demonstrate that you have wilfully misrepresented my views and position. I have stated them clearly for all to see in comment #187943.

You have a poor grasp of the argument when you stated that I condoned your bestiality (sorry, putative bestial act). I never did. You have an even more abstracted grip on reality if you believe that any failure of mine to supply solid reasons for my condemnation of bestiality allows you to freely condemn homosexuality. It does not.

The nitty gritty you refer to is, I venture to suggest, only now beginning to dawn upon you.

258. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187943 by AllanW on June 3, 2008 at 4:27 am

Comment #187936 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 4:21 am
'Your comment about the bestiality issue is clear. I've highlighted it before for all to see. If you want to change your position now, feel free to do it. So are you now saying you don't condone me fucking my cat in the privacy of my own house?'

My comment was indeed clear. You have highlighted it before and misrepresented it. I do not change my position now nor have I before. I say as I did before (please try to understand rather than project your own views) that I would not enter your house to stop you fucking your cat. I do not condone your actions. I do not conflate bestiality with homosexuality. Any repetition of your misrepresentation will be clear to all (as it has been so far I believe) and I reserve all my rights in this matter.

259. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187930 by AllanW on June 3, 2008 at 4:15 am

Appleby; you were asked a number of times yesterday to cease and desist from misrepresenting my position and comments. You have continued today in comment #187926. Cease and desist.

260. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187914 by AllanW on June 3, 2008 at 3:06 am

Everything you ever wanted to know about Appleby. In his own words ...

Comment #186702 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 6:17 am

I'm not a Muslim but feel the same way about "damaged goods". I would prefer not to marry a woman who had slept with other men in the past because I suspect most have a "special connection" with some of them (especially their first time).

Comment #186712 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 7:12 am

Well I do dislike homosexuals. What they do simply disgusts me. Does this make me religious or a bigot? Am I not permitted to feel the way I do about them? Must I be at worst indifferent to them? Is this some kind of objective morality? Am I also wrong for preferring the company of beautiful women and shunning the fat and ugly ones?

Comment #186793 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 10:19 am

And to present a further "contradiction", perhaps my revulsion towards homosexuality is limited to relations among men and not women (am I still sexist, ladies?). I, personally, don't see anything wrong with any of this. Do you? If so, why?

Comment #186827 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 11:06 am

For me, there is no contradiction with the idea that white people are still generally more intelligent than blacks. Do you find all this strange?

Comment #186827 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 11:06 am
epeeist wrote:

I take it then that you would be perfectly okay with a woman rejecting you because you have slept with other women?


No, I wouldn't because I don't see men and women as equal in that way.


Comment #186847 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 12:16 pm

What if we had to kill our only child because it was incontestibly the "right" thing to do at some point? In the same vein, much "simpler" issue such as men actually being superior to women should not be dismissed outright because we find it disagreeable.

Comment #186897 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 5:14 pm

We treat people differently all the time and think nothing of it. Why are skin colour and gender not acceptable reasons for doing so? Political correctness?


Comment #186898 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Personally I think males and females evolved for partnership with each other and homosexuals are an aberration in nature, which is not uncommon.

Comment #187052 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 8:20 am

Perhaps if the evidence warrants it, you might even accept that white people are more intelligent than blacks; and that perhaps women should be subservient to men. It is a double-edged sword this thing about evidence and truth. It doesn't have to cut the way we like it. I might just go and start looking for scientific data to support the aforementioned contentions. What do you think of that?

Comment #187075 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 9:11 am

Let me ask you this. Is there any kind of evidence, in principle, that could be presented to warrant that homosexuals should be exiled and not treated as equals?

Comment #187090 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 9:30 am

If homosexuals could be demonstrated to be on the level of animals (i.e. less than human by some criteria), I'd say that would warrant giving them less rights. After all, animals don't have the same rights we do.


Comment #187119 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 10:10 am

I personally simply find male homosexuality disgusting. That's all. I don't think it's grounds to deny them their rights. However, I would perhaps be more open - than say, gay rights proponents - to the "less than human" argument just mentioned.

Comment #187126 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 10:24 am

Well, just because something is true in nature, it doesn't make it right. Homosexuality might have been seen by the religious as "unproductive". They *do* tend to die off and leave no offspring of their own, don't they? Offspring with perhaps the same "bad wiring" (if you'll excuse the term) no less.

I find male homosexuality disgusting because I'm a straight guy. I think that also answers why I don't find female homosexuality disgusting.

Comment #187130 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 10:40 am

In a similar way, I find the shoving of male penises into assholes of other men disgusting.

Comment #187150 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 11:29 am

I think homosexuals are better off living in communities of their own. They'll be more comfortable there. I don't mind having them as my neighbour. I would prefer a straight person, though.


Comment #187394 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 5:05 am

All I'm saying is, I think it's better kids are adopted by, as you put it "appropriately screened" straight parents. And I'm sorry but I have the interest of the kids as a priority here... not the deep desire for gays to adopt children.

Comment #187478 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 8:02 am

You may ask why I even suspect that things may not be right with gay adoption? Well, to me it's obvious. There's no male or female to assume the role of the father or mother and I THINK that makes a difference.

Comment #187619 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 11:42 am

The POSSIBLE risk of psychological damage due to adoption by HOMOSEXUAL parents cannot be ruled out. By definition, this does not apply to adoption by straight parents.

Comment #187635 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Because everything else being equal (let's assume the heteros are not pedophiles, drunks, smokers or whatnot) gay parents still have their homosexuality to account for.

Comment #187725 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 1:32 pm

I'm going to have to ignore you now, honey. Oops... am I now a misogynist????

Comment #187828 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 7:36 pm

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

Comment #187867 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 11:25 pm

Any issue pertaining to morality where ALL the science supposedly points in just one direction is questionable to me.

EDIT: As irate_atheist and I are fond of saying, sometimes you only need to underline.

261. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #187580 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 10:23 am

Al;
'Another point you could make against a free market, is where interests overlap. For instance can the government demand that a bank keep a certain amount of cash in liquid securities to cover demands for withdrawal. The consitution would not allow this, but what about people who have a right to retrieve their money. The government can often act as a mediator and assurer of contracts in the free market.'

It's not a point against free markets (only to point out that there are no free markets but we already agreed on that). And this is exactly the situation that pertains with the Fed as regards deposit-taking banks. The Fed regulations about asset-backing and the rules that they need to confirm to are clear and are exactly as you describe. The problem here is the definition of banks that have to adhere to these regulations. Up until now it has been traditional banking corporations etc. Which is why investment banks etc were created to get away from the (as they saw them 'onerous') capital restrictions. The problem that the authorities sleep-walked into was not regulating the connections between traditional and these new banking institutions. If they get too connected (and most of them were) they can bring down the regulated side by taking on too much risk. When the shit hits the fan in the form of defaults (there are other reasons why the shit hit the fan like transparency etc) then the implications run straight through these chinese walls and so the Fed steps in with the tax-payers money in the form of bail-outs.

Your other point touched on a side-note of Fed actions that is intriguing; that of 'who gets the bail-outs'. There is again much blogging on this mainly revolving around the notion you mentioned before of 'let the criminal bastards who caused this rot in hell'. Why hasn't the Fed gone straight to the ultimate source of defaults in the real ecomony (householders and mortgage holders) to bail them out? Much technical discussion ensues as so far (things are developing daily) the availability of the Feds funds has been limited to the financial market participants.

cf recent moves to broker a deal with second and third level mortgage-writers (avoiding the packaged CDO sellers) to delay or rewrite mortgage terms.

262. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #187554 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 9:56 am

Al;

I concur with the points in para one.

'But these people should be dealt with in the courts and forced to redress any losses they caused due to dishonesty or illegal business practice.' Nice idea but two problems with it. In fact the financial market operations that caused the damage were so widespread and inter-related that unravelling them would take an immense amount of time (cf Bear Stearns bailout 'cos they were 'too connected to allow to fail') and only point out that virtually everyone was in on the game. And secondly there is not enough money in the whole system to pay back the consequential damages (cf the need for the Fed to spend billions on the market bailout so far). So even nif a successful lawsuit were made and won the money would not be there to payout. Which is why it's even more important to see these problems coming and prevent them as once they hit there is not much you can do but ride out the storm.

'I notice you didn't answer my defense contracts comments.' Nope because I don't have enough hard information to back up my claim :) But I'd still argue that it's not the Government sponsored state-to-state arms sales that are not regulated (although read up on Al Yammah deal by BaE ) but rather the huge market in illicit arms. How is that regulated?

'Also if the government bails people out, this isn't a free market either.' Correct. My full-blown ire is directed at the regulatory authorities which created the mindset in the financial markets (by repealing Glass-Seagal, failing to regulate on the ground at all etc) that risk-taking above and beyond any prudential measure at all was acceptable because the bail-out was always available. They created a situation of pure 'Bagehot doctrine' suicide waiting to happen.

'Both sides (Absolute free marketeers and absolute socialists) basically say the same useless thing'. Agreed. Pure idealistic fantasies. I'm idealistic but have my feet firmly rooted in the earth not in the clouds.

263. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #187509 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 9:15 am

Al;
'In a free(r) market, new securities will come to market, they will be traded and utilized until the consequences are discovered. Then there will be appropriate regulation of the securities.'

Seriously? And you criticise MY grasp on logic? Let's get back to what 'regulation' means; the application of control metrics to keep a system within defined specifications. In this case I would guess that 'specifications' excludes the circumstances where 'millions of people face economic bankruptcy and state institutions have to spend billions to bail-out the market'. Seem reasonable to you? So, in your model it's acceptable to introduce new, whiz-bang products (for which read 'hand-waving risk models that do not cover sufficient timescales to make obvious the catastrophic consequences to the financial instruments of payment defaults') whose perils are pointed out at the time by erudite economists but which promise short-term gain and then you wait for consequences to make themselves known before any ameliorative actions are put in place? Let me sell you a thermostat for your wine cellar. It's made of fantastic new materials that nevertheless make it cheaper than anything else on the market. Here are many reliable reports which state that it's operation is all you could ask for (I'll hide the ones which say it is more likely to fail). You install the thermostat and go away for the holiday weekend. When you return, your incredibly expensive cellar of wines and licquors has been ruined because the thermostat malfunctioned. This has happened to quite a number of people who bought the same product and the companies' response is; 'Ok, we now have some information that our thermostat causes this to happen'. You find it acceptable for the state to step in AT THIS POINT to make rules about the product? No, you launch a lawsuit to recover your damages. In the resulting investigation you find out that there were indeed credible analyses of the product that predicted exactly the failure you experienced. Do you take the view of 'caveat emptor' (I got shafted this time and have no legal recourse to damages but I'll try not to let it happen again') or 'WTF is the government doing allowing this piece of shit to be sold?'

The first response is pure capitalism at work, the second is a mixed-economy response.

I said that the industries/markets I mentioned before were essentially unregulated. You can tell this by the consequences they achieve. If the results are unacceptable but predictable and controllable then the market is under regulated.

'But the Monday morning quarterbacking by the anti-capitalist crowd is really just annoying and doesn't help, or add even the slightest sliver of value to the debate.'

Wrong again. It's uncomfortable to you as it exposes your naivety. It has value because it can be shown that, far from being 'with hindsight', the criticisms were made beforehand, in extreme detail and reveal the scale of the monstrous negligence by the regulatory bodies concerned that allowed the market failure to happen. I'll happily supply you offline with links for all of these points.

'Mixed economy? I am not for that?' Then I back-off my vehemence. I had understood that you were advocating free market capitalism rather than any form of 'socialist' meddling with the operation of markets. If I've misunderstood your position I apologise. If you accept the efficacy of mixed economic solutions then we are not far apart :)

264. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187486 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 8:23 am

Appleby;

Strike three. Bye.

265. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187480 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 8:16 am

Appleby;
You duplicitous, lying shitbag. 'Well, according to AllanW, there is technically no reason not to condone people having sex with animals when we condone homosexuality'. You know full well that is not my position. Retract it at once.

Also explain 'technically' in this context. Also respond to the points I have made to you three times now viz;

'do you concede the point that you have failed to justify YOUR view that strictly heterosexual societies are better than any other? '

Three strikes and you're out, pal. This is number three.

266. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #187475 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 7:57 am

'As for western economies. Those are anything but unregulated. They are highly regulated, America being the prime example. There is nothing remotely free about this market, sounds like you are the one being binary.'

Wrong. US financial markets have been (since the repeal of Glass-Seagal(sp?)) as unregulated as any in history.

How do you account for the activities of the mortgage industry in the States during 2006 and 2007 without warping the words 'regulated' and 'highly'? Or the homeopathic remedies industry to this day? Or the activities of defense firms in the Middle East? etc etc

'If it weren't for pretty free markets in Scandanavia they couldn't fund their social programs. '

The comment makes no sense; most Scandinavian social programmes are funded through direct taxation.

'But if simply having a few social programs funded by the state makes you socialist, then I don't have a problem with that, because the country remains capitalist for all intents and purposes.'

No; it remains a mixed economy. Recognising the social value of non-market supplied goods and services (ie state programmes such as defense, fire fighting, policing etc) is an implicit acceptance that free markets cannot provide these socially necessary services. Hell, I even got FF to accept that one in the thread I mentioned before.

Once you accept that the mantra of 'free markets' is not only meaningless in the real world but impossible to achieve you can go on to address mixed-economy structures that do work more often than it has been demonstrated that truly capitalist ones haven't.

267. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187467 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 7:31 am

#187446
'So what parts have I missed? I understand if it's difficult for you to keep track given all the distractions on this board; especially the juvenile comments by some people. '

You missed the parts where you were going to prove how a strictly heterosexual society was better than allowing any other type od sex. You failed. You advanced two arguments which I responded to.

Since then you have meandered off in response to others while quite deliberately (it seems to me) refusing to engage the arguments or response points.

I repeat, do you concede the point that you have failed to justify YOUR view that strictly heterosexual societies are better than any other?

268. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #187464 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 7:18 am

Al, I know you are strong enough to take robust debate on the chin and I enjoy the fact that you have the bollocks to change your mind when presented with information that contradicts your previously held views so I'm sure you'll take my comments in a similar vein.

'Says the guy enjoying the benefits of a free market.' Cheap and meaningless shot. I'd ignore it if it were only personal but it gives me the chance to make another point; this is not a zero-sum game. The opposite of 'socialism' is not 'capitalism'. If I had a personal comment to make back to you I'd say that your views tend to be too binary to ever be useful in the random chaos of the real world. They may have some value as thought-experiments so most of the time I read the emerging thought-processes displayed in your posts as exactly that; the developing musings of a younger man.

'In the meantime perhaps you could contribute some evidence, original analysis, or something otherwise insightful,'. You are forgiven for missing the enjoyable exchange of ideas that FF and I had on another thread where I did exactly that (Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher ).

'but I am going to guess that is asking too much of the socialist crowd'. Al, you know as well as anybody on here by now that labelling a group and characterising and treating them as an homogenous total is asking for trouble. 'socialism requires state ownership of industry' is just plain wrong. You are describing a Marxist or communist state. I can imagine why you make these conflation mistakes as most states or governments outside the US appear to be left-wing compared to America. This is your own misperception (shared with a number of your compatriots). Just because they seem to be to the left of the political spectrum in relation to the States (where BOTH parties would be viewed as right wing) they are not homogenous. There is a whole range of responses between complete state ownership and fully-fledged capitalism that exist.

'epeeist,
Fair enough. I don't really care for vultures either.' And there's the main point I'd like to make. The experience of western economies in the last thirty years has been unrestrained/under-regulated free-market capitalism and one of the main results has been market imperfections causing substantial, sharp market adjustments that have required state bail-outs. I'll link a number of reputable economic blog postings that demonstrate that even the ivory-tower economists (from all parts of the political spectrum) are now beginning to accept the need for restrictions on financial and real markets to prevent the excesses of 'vultures'.

http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/05/23/the-us-imported-too-loose-a-monetary-policy-from-the-world-and-now-exports-too-loose-a-monetary-policy-to-the-world/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002568_pf.html

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/06/talebs-harsh-assessment-of-bankers.html

http://blogs.ft.com/wolfforum/2008/06/six-principles-for-a-new-regulatory-order/

269. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187442 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 6:30 am

Comment #187440 by Appleby

Again with the shift-and-distract tactics.

Stick to the point and stop prevaricating; you avoided understanding my points to you about your sophomoric justification for a heterosexual society.

You have shown no ways that a strictly heterosexual society is better than another. Care to concede that point now, explicitly?

270. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187438 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 6:23 am

Appleby;
'You *do* realize you are calling me prejudiced (several times now already) based on my personal feelings about homosexuality, don't you? Are you sure you want to continue?'

*hands slaps forehead in surprise*

Yes! Everyone has! For most of this thread after you contributed! Because you have demonstrated your prejudice over and over and over ad nauseam! Is this only just penetrating your skull?

I'll continue to point out your prejudices as long as you keep reinforcing them on this site, mate.

You do realise what prejudice is, don't you? Someone posted an earlier definition to help you, I thought you had read it. Prejudice is a prior view or assumption developed before information has been obtained. See how that works? You assume homosexuals are bad people because the prejudice has been indoctrinated into you. Most of this thread has become many peoples' attempts to get you to recognise your prejudice and through argument, debate and information to show you that it is unfounded.

271. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187429 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 6:10 am

Well, I think you've gone beyond any hope of reasonable discourse now, Appleby. I don't know whether it was having to think on the hoof or having to address areas that come within your prejudices but whatever the reason you've become incoherent.

Example;
'And this is why a society where some lines are drawn is better than none (as you propose, refer Comment #187361 by AllanW). '

I never proposed that, you projected. This point is backed up in detail with post #187371 where I explicitly support a number of rules that currently exist.

Example;
'First of all, why do you assume women in such a society will be waiting around just to be artificially inseminated by the men on days they choose not to fuck their cats or dogs? Or are you suggesting this insemination be imposed on them'

What does the first statement mean? It's gibberish and completely unrelated to any point I made. The second statement is another projection and unrelated to anything I said or implied.

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen, mate.

272. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187415 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 5:56 am

You idiot; my response was directly relevant to your post. Which parts of 'artificial insemination' etc were not relevant or reasonable to your 'procreation of the species' argument?

On the contrary, I think you have now dug yourself such a deeply ignorant hole that you just wish to disengage before making an ever bigger fool of yourself.

You have proferred a simplistic and ill-thought-out response (off the top of your head) and it showed. Now do you have any other reasons to offer as to why a society should be organised solely on the basis of heterosexual sexual activity or do you give up?

Your last post seems to indicate giving up but I'd appreciate confirmation before irate_atheist comes back from dinner and administers the coup de grace.

273. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #187412 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 5:50 am

'I assumed that would be self evident - basically someone suffers if something he/she doesn't want to happen happens and he/she knows about it.'

And do you include the foetus in this 'knows about it' category? At what stage?

274. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187409 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 5:46 am

Oh dear. You need to do more thinking in this area, don't you?

'1) procreation of the species'

Men fucking women is completely unnecessary at this point in our development to procreate our species (read anything about artificial insemination; read anything about artificial wombs).
World population statistics indicate that the pressing problem is not under-supply of new births but oversupply (read anything at all about population data; read anything at all about survival rates of new-borns allied with aging statistics and mortality rates).

'2) disease control'

You linked this specifically to bestiality. And offered a completely asinine idea. I'm not interested in your wild-assed guesses. Go and prove it.

In fact, drop the bestiality fetish and concentrate just on human sexuality because that's the root cause of your being uncomfortable, isn't it? That humans engage in sexual activity of all kinds for fun and you have been brought-up (indoctrinated?) to think that is 'wrong'. Get over yourself; human sexuality has encompassed this for millennia.

275. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187402 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 5:24 am

Stop prevaricating Appleby and answer some of the points made earlier. Wasting your time restating your understanding of my points is futile and transparent. Get you arguments together on;

'Your tempted to draw the line earlier; where?'

'Why do you say 'earlier than perhaps necessary'? Unravel your implicit assumptions about right and wrong in that idea for me, would you?'

'And I'll take you up on your proud boast; please, please, please detail for me where a 'society where men fuck exclusively women is better off'. I can't wait. '

276. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187392 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 5:01 am

You again wilfully miss the point. My detailed post was constructed precisely with issues like homosexuality, bestiality etc in mind. The basis for my post was NOT my 'support' for homosexuality but my support for ideas of privacy, freedom of sexual expression, liberty and personal responsibility. They are applicable as widely as I can think.

Re-read the post to understand that. I'm not twisted in my logic BECAUSE I support homosexual relationships but I support the privacy, freedom of expression etc that enables homosexual relationships to be allowed and flourish in the circumstances I described. You yet again have prejudices and assumptions that you bring to this debate that you need to unpack. You also project your own prejudices upon others where they are non-existant.

And I'll take you up on your proud boast; please, please, please detail for me where a 'society where men fuck exclusively women is better off'. I can't wait.

277. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187377 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 4:47 am

Oh! So everything I said is 'liberalism'. You say that as if it were bad. Ok. I notice you make no attempt to deal with any part of my reply. Ok.

Your tempted to draw the line earlier; where?

Why do you say 'earlier than perhaps necessary'? Unravel your implicit assumptions about right and wrong in that idea for me, would you?

'In which case is society better off?' Mine. Argue against it, why dontcha?

278. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187371 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 4:34 am

Comment #187365 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 3:54 am
Well what if I liked fucking my cat in the privacy of my own house? Would you draw the line there? Based on what?

Ok, I'll bite and go through this as slowly as necessary for you to follow it.

If it's your own home, you live alone, have no real effect upon your neighbours and confine your activity solely to that place then I personally have no wish to stop your activity. You might want to think about your own attitudes to inter-species relationships but that's a discussion or debate to be had.

The circumstances change somewhat if we flex the parameters above. If you have children in the house that may be influenced by your proclivities or you deliberately parade your activity in front of them (thereby implicitly sanctioning their adoption of this practice), I'd be sceptical of your sanity, as you would be in effect preparing them for an anti-social existence and ostracism. You know that your predilection for fucking cats is not welcomed by most of society yet you go ahead and teach your kids to practise this bestiality. Please note that I'm not condemning bestiality; my own views are my own and I don't seek to urge you to adopt them but I'm arguing here solely about the effect upon your kids.

If you decided that more people should understand the benefits of cat fucking and took to the streets to evangelise your belief or took to writing and promoting cat fucking as a lifestyle (i.e. took your practice out of the house in private) then I personally would respect your free speech rights to do so. I stress that the writing or speaking activities would be acceptable but fucking the cat in public would fall under public lewdness laws and be rightfully prosecuted.

And if you fucked the cat too loudly in your home (disturbing your neighbours) or did it where passers-by could unwittingly witness your acts then again I would support the authorities in enforcing your adherence to public order rules.

In short I support your personal choice where it infringes no laws and does not damage impressionable minors within your responsibility. The basis for curtailing your activity is 'public acts' and minors. Again I stress the 'curtailing of your activity'; not that you 'shouldn't' fuck cats or it's 'wrong' to fuck cats. If you think it's acceptable, that's your concern and tells anyone else who knows your proclivities something about you. Consider that. But I wouldn't try to stop you from doing it in the circumstances outlined above.

279. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187361 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 3:41 am

299. Comment #187358 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 3:30 am
'I suppose what you're saying is right. But where then, do we draw the line?'

Again with the implicit assumptions ... sigh.

Why do you have to draw any line? What purpose are you looking to achieve by drawing this line? Are you suggesting you have a desperate need to distance yourself from other members of the human race? Are you assuming that lines NEED to be drawn segregating some members of the race from others? Do try to get over this juvenile categorisation fetish you seem to have.

280. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #187344 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 2:17 am

Jesus wept! LOL

281. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #187342 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 2:16 am

Ah! Another driveby manure-spreading by a theist.

MEmmanuel; thanks for taking the time to register on the site and drop your load. Bye!

282. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #187337 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 2:01 am

hcaroe; Thanks for your post. Five sentences but sooooo much to pick over.

1. Would you care to explain WHY you like Cardinal Murphy O'Connor? What is it about him as a person or about his ideas that appeals to you?

2. Sorry to be snarky but the two words 'I think' from your next sentence plainly aren't true are they? Nevertheless your idea that RD is a bully and forcing anyone to worship him as a god is so plainly wrong that I can only think you project onto this sites' participants your own cowering fear before your own god. Look up 'projection' in this sense if you need to.

3. What's wrong with the photos in your opinion? Please explain your exclamation.

4. Ah! I see; you think that because we don't believe in god we cannot feel a sense of community? Is that it? Or do you resent anyone who does not share your beliefs having their own site? Or is your point simply that we should spend less time talking about one of the great social controversies of our times and more time ignoring the controversy? You'll appreciate by now that your terse phrases can be taken so many ways and have so little explicit meaning that I'm struggling to understand what they in fact mean.

5. 'Maybe try praying.' I'd rather do something useful, thanks :)

283. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187189 by AllanW on June 1, 2008 at 1:04 pm

'Imagine the chaos that would ensue if Max were to pass a jar of mustard to Mitchell while Colwyn and I were sitting at the next table! '

I'm sure the disgusting mustard-lovers would understand this scenario and be happy to retreat to their own enclave to avoid just such a social situation.

'Forget about mustard-lovers, what about those who love marmite? They should be stoned on sight. '

The difference here, of course, is that marmite does in fact smell like shit :)

Justified stoning for all perpetrators as far as I'm concerned LOL

284. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187140 by AllanW on June 1, 2008 at 11:02 am

Appleby; post #187138
'Well I hope my disgust is justified because that's all it is... disgust. I'm not also forced to like it, am I? '

We've explained to you a number of ways that your disgust is NOT justified.

You don't have to like it either but tolerate and refuse to discriminate against people who do.

285. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187137 by AllanW on June 1, 2008 at 10:55 am

MaxD;

I understand and agree with you about most of post #187132. Pointing out where prejudices are exactly that (not thought through sufficiently) is useful to people who will rationally listen and take the discussion onboard. Other readers may fall into this category but I see no reason to include Appleby so far.

As for examining Applebys thoughts to understand how he came to these prejudices may be forensically useful in some way, agreed. But only if, again, you think that they may be changed by evidence and examination. I'm not sure in this case they can.

You are right though that the exercise in itself can be useful for the person (in this case people like you, phil rimmer etc) to develop their understanding. Good luck to you all.

Maybe I have too little human empathy so find it difficult to waste it on wilfully ignorant bigots like Appleby. My bad I'm sure :)

286. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187129 by AllanW on June 1, 2008 at 10:38 am

Why are you guys feeding this troll on his homophobic prejudice?

He answered anything you can possibly want to know about why he is happy being homophobic by using the word 'right' in every sentence in which he mentions it.

'Right' is a pejorative, moralistic judgement and has no place in any rational or scientific conversation. 'Fit', 'Adapted', 'Appropriate' even could be used but once you use the word 'right' the conversation disappears into moral territory.

That is what Appleby does consistently; tries to naively and ignorantly discuss and post-rationalise his prejudices. I know you guys are doing a pretty good job of leading him by the nose through his mistakes and ignorance so all power to you; I don't have the stomach to treat irrational prejudices with anything but loathing.

287. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187065 by AllanW on June 1, 2008 at 8:55 am

As coincidence would have it, the remarkable Ridley Scott film 'The Duellists' is now on my telly.

I vote that epeeist is the honourable D'Hubert and Appleby takes the part of the vengeful and irrational Ferraud.

288. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186982 by AllanW on June 1, 2008 at 2:38 am

Appleby;

You see a demon I didn't put there; care to refute any part of what I wrote? My comments (as you yourself claim to be doing in other posts) were merely speculation.

You should apologise for nothing you have done, it affects the readers and posters of this site not at all. If anything you should apologise to yourself for creating the impressions you do. You are the only one affected in all of this.

289. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #186980 by AllanW on June 1, 2008 at 2:33 am

clearthinker;
'It was very unconvincing. I write as someone who went with an open mind, looking to be convinced and presented with the evidence.'

Oh hahahahahahahahahaha

(breath)


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh dear (wipes eyes, shakes head).

290. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186976 by AllanW on June 1, 2008 at 2:20 am

I think the problem we are having with Appleby is the same one we had with the religiot from a few months back (wish I could remember his name).

Its semantics; none of his concepts, words or even sentence constructions have any solidity. Their meanings drift from post to post depending upon Applebys state of mind and feelings when the post is constructed.

Nothing fixed, nothing even stable, everything is in a state of flux. Appleby thinks this is sophisticated, we know this is a sign of a moral and intellectual vacuum.

Maybe Appleby is conducting a thought-experiment; maybe Appleby is trying to put some definition on ideas by bouncing them off other people; maybe Appleby really does have no stable concepts or ideas and these posts are a desperate scream for some sort of validation. No point in asking Appleby as the level of self-awareness displayed so far is negligible.

Or maybe Appleby really is the mysoginistic, homophobic bigot he appears to be. He commented earlier that his thoughts and posts here have nothing to do with religion; I disagree and think that sections of his posts back me up. The only difference is that he may not be a regular member of a recognised church but he is the founding member, main parishioner and tiresome evangelist for the Church of the Blessed Appleby.

291. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186855 by AllanW on May 31, 2008 at 12:55 pm

AtheistAspy;

Forgive me for mentioning it but your small-scale personal experiences are worth diddly squat. They point you in exactly the wrong direction according to vast amounts of research.

Just another example of specious subjective experience forming a series of conjectures and viewpoints or theories that not only do they not support but are directly contradicted by other, more objective and definitive research.

Nice try but no coconut. Next.

292. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186854 by AllanW on May 31, 2008 at 12:50 pm

I think it's clear that Appleby is trying to rationalise the dissonance caused by religion in his head. Sorry mate, try as you might, it won't square the circle.

Either join us in the real, rational world or lie to yourself and compartmentalise your brain.

Quotes from Appleby below;

(What if we had to kill our only child because it was incontestibly the "right" thing to do at some point?)

(If homosexuality was rightfully found (nevermind how, for now) to be detrimental to society and homosexuals therefore sentenced to exile (for the good of society, perhaps even the species), could you possibly have the fortitude to accept that "truth" despite its consequences, maybe even to yourself?)

(For me, there is no contradiction with the idea that white people are still generally more intelligent than blacks.)

(Men really are superior to women.)

293. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186838 by AllanW on May 31, 2008 at 11:45 am

txpiper;
'Adaptation, even extreme adaptation, really happens. It is easily observable. But the most dramatic examples of adaptation are still almost completely confined to species. The concept does not transfer to one vertebrate class changing into another. That idea is fantasy in my view.'

Oh. Your an advocate for ID then ('Only change within a species, dummy, nowhere else'). Thanks for confirming that. Bye; you cannot be talked with.

Just watch; http://www.rockefeller.edu/evolution/video.php?src=coyne

294. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #186691 by AllanW on May 31, 2008 at 4:57 am

epeeist;

But don't you see? That activity MUST be good because it happens within a free-market, capitalist framework. Likewise with the income and capital distribution in the States and most western, developed economies where the top one percent of the population hold between thirty and forty percent of the wealth. It must be right because it's a free choice of freely rational people exercising their freedom to be at the bottom of the pile. They just don't have the 'get-up-and-go' or intelligence of the others. Hey, if they did, THEY would be the rich one percent; don't you think?

FF and Al will excoriate you for misunderstanding how beautifully and freely the market creates these resource allocation decisions and results. Don't you understand?

/sarcasm off

295. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #186504 by AllanW on May 30, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Artful_Dodger;
'"Intelligent design" is not only about irreducible complexity. It is about positing the existence of God on the basis, among other things, of the "non physical" rationality that enables us to argue anything in the first place.'

Typically specious bullshit. Do you have an answer to the 'Who created the creator?' response? No, thought not.

Just respond to the myriad of other questions posed to you on other threads before polluting the internet with more of your vacuity.

296. Iowa county board gives initial OK for ghost hunters to investigate asylum

Comment #185671 by AllanW on May 28, 2008 at 9:39 am

Ok CAPT, I'll bite;

What objective evidence do you have in this area? Objective being outside the brain-chemistry of an individual.

Many thanks in anticipation.

297. What is science for?

Comment #185315 by AllanW on May 27, 2008 at 12:21 pm

ASMarques;

Maybe you do not understand the nature of the 'alternate comment thread' on site. If so, I can understand why you think your comments have been censored or deleted; they have not. Just click the 'alternate comment' part of each thread and they are readable by anyone.

You have obviously reached the stage that a few other posters have reached where the inane repetition of obvious falsehoods, skewed and malicious rhetoric and plain lies no longer has even instructional value for casual readers. The administrators have placed your delusions at the side of each thread as a result. Not censored, not deleted, not suppressed just sidelined.

About time too.

Yet I'm sure you'll continue to bleat about suppression and censorship because it feels so good to feel oppressed in your favourite obsession, doesn't it? Kinda makes you feel as if you suffer for your goal? Wrong; you're just a boring inconsequential bigotted anti-semite who now receives the attention he deserves; next to none.

298. What is science for?

Comment #184265 by AllanW on May 24, 2008 at 8:39 am

Well, I now count that as three times ASMarques has returned/responded to say he has no time to respond to your direct questions while making some other point. A more clear example of ducking the issue you could not wish.

299. What is science for?

Comment #184245 by AllanW on May 24, 2008 at 5:53 am

Frankus1122;

He made it plain in a comment referenced here;
Comment #176802 by AllanW on May 8, 2008 at 4:45 am

300. What is science for?

Comment #184239 by AllanW on May 24, 2008 at 4:58 am

'Who here calls themselves a Bright?'

Nope; never have done. But I have a good reason not to ....