Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by epeeist


251. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #190063 by epeeist on June 8, 2008 at 10:00 am

Comment #190021 by Steve Zara

I actually don't think any "organising" is generally necessary. Just persistent but polite questioning when someone puts forward a position based on religious authority.
Agreed if it is a matter of talking directly to believers.

It may require some more coordinated effort if it is the religious organisations that are being challenged.

252. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #190007 by epeeist on June 8, 2008 at 6:22 am

Comment #189972 by clearthinker

It's time for atheists to "come out of the closet" in the way that gays did in the 70s. That's all we are doing by getting together; we are just recognising that our numbers are far larger than any one of us as individuals had ever imagined. That's not religion - that's ENLIGHTENMENT

Dr Jonesz " Yes of course you are more than many people think. You have basically been controlling the Western and Chinese world in the name of Enlightenment for the past 100 years. Anyway perhaps it is time you came "out of the closet" and let your light shine. After all up until now atheists have been quiet, hiding and afraid. Perhaps you could write a book " lets call it "The God Delusion" Perhaps you should get yourselves a name. I don't know", how about The Brights? That should be self effacing enough and doubtless will catch on.


"The religious are fully entitled to their beliefs". I get a lot of the old "Well, you can disagree with me, but I'm entitled to my opinion." This is, frankly, tosh. You are only entitled to an opinion if it is reasonable. The religious are, ipso facto, unentitled, because their reasoning is faulty. What they ARE entitled to is the opportunity to be educated - to BECOME reasonable.
Laurie " is this what Steve means by reasonable? We are only entitled to an opinion if it is reasonable " and anyone religious is by definition not reasonable. Way to go! Reeducate the believers. Make them "reasonable". Don't let them vote until they become reasonable. Is this the "decency" Steve is speaking about?


Just to emphasise what AllanW said. I picked a couple of random sections from clearthinker's post.

Ask yourself - is this person here to take part in a critical debate, or is he here to generate angry responses from people on the site. Did he cherry pick pieces out of your post, did he actually make a constructive response?

Take into account that he has previously cut such responses and pasted them into his own web site. Also take into account that he has recently declared his creationist views and the fact that he is due to debate with an atheist at some juncture (chairing which was a task which Paula refused).

Given his longish absence from the site, one has to ask why he is returning now (and why he has time to post on the Sabbath)?

However, the basic acceptance of "God" was always a given.

Epeeist - And now the basic non acceptance of God is a "given" in many areas of society. Such unthinking atheism is based upon a series of myths which are swalloed wholesale by atheists.
Actually, I think there is as much non-acceptance of god as you suppose. Much more indifference and the irrelevance of god to most people.

Is this "series of myths" anything like the "tenets" of atheism that you keep on not describing to us?

253. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #190000 by epeeist on June 8, 2008 at 5:57 am

Comment #189997 by ape-woman

I have been studying postmodernism for some weeks now and find that it is entirely maddening my brain. And I think I have a pretty good understanding of the overall concept!
Can I recommend a small book as a purgative - "Why Truth Matters" by Jeremy Stangroom and Ophelia Benson.

254. Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief

Comment #189905 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Comment #189872 by moderndaythomas


I'm an able hand, though somewhat lacking in the skipper department. One day though.
I've seen many pictures of Baltic sailing, is the weather good out there for it?
Its a very short season, but can be incredibly hot an dry. That trip we kept sailing north to find somewhere cooler. Ended up just above 62 degrees north. The best bit was using a public sauna on one of the islands, coming out and jumping straight into the sea.

Comment #189873 by SharonMcT

You have to be good to be lucky. Judging from the photos, you are a lucky man. :)
The benefits of having a wife who teaches at an all girls school ;-)

255. Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief

Comment #189869 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 11:54 am

Comment #189834 by moderndaythomas

f evolutionists could only organise like this. I'm willing to claim that I need a nice 45 foot Halberg-Rassy to circumnavigate the globe spreading the word of Darwin.
I might give you a ride on my Swan-Nautor when my acolytes grace me with one.

In the mean while, here is a picture with me on a smaller Halberg-Rassy in the Baltic. Plus some others with me having to work hard to compensate for the crews I had - http://www.flickr.com/photos/10983076@N08/sets/72157605487930517/ ;-)

256. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189820 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 10:28 am

Comment #189814 by Quetzalcoatl

he may have heard of the Atheist Handbook, but he doesn't know where to get a copy. NOBODY TELL HIM!
I left my copy on the train with a http://www.bookcrossing.com/ sticker on it. I hope it doesn't end up in Dundee.

257. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189804 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 9:59 am

Comment #189798 by The Reverend Dark

And soccer fans - with their dogmatic adherence to the hooligan, the Beckham and the holy chav.
I think a cease and desist order is necessary.

Some of us are listening to Test Match Special and wondering whether New Zealand will last until stumps in the cricket match against England.

Others may follow one of the European sides in the pie-powder event that started today.

258. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189793 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 9:31 am

Comment #189789 by Steve Zara

That clearthinker feels the need to post here is a very hopeful sign. People him are now put in a defensive position.
Colour me cynical, but I wonder if he is looking for new material to quote mine.

It may be worthwhile having a look at your PMs Steve if you haven't done so for a while.

259. Reality wins in Texas!

Comment #189786 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 9:17 am

So WTF is "Creationism Science" and is anyone from the Dallas area going to complain about it to the paper?

260. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189776 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 8:46 am

Comment #189768 by Laurie Fraser


"The religious are fully entitled to their beliefs". I get a lot of the old "Well, you can disagree with me, but I'm entitled to my opinion." This is, frankly, tosh.
So if people are only entitled to an opinion if it is reasonable, then who decides what is reasonable and what isn't?

I wouldn't want to deny anyone the right to believe or practice those beliefs. What I would want is justification as to why those beliefs should get you, for example, 26 unelected members in the legislature or the right to indoctrinate children in schools.

As for italics - I use < em > italic text < /em > around the text I want to italicise or < strong > bold text < /text > around text I want emboldened. You will need to take out the spaces around the word inside the angle brackets to make it work.

261. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189740 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 5:59 am

Comment #189732 by Steve Zara

I don't think that is enough. One can say that people should have to justify claims, but one also, I feel, has to provide a foundation for how claims are justified. We need an equivalent of the Queensbury Rules for public disagreements and debates.
Justification is the critical element. It is something that the religious have not had to do at the foundations before, there may have been disputes over interpretation of scripture and arguments over whether the host is actually transubstantiated during mass. However, the basic acceptance of "God" was always a given.

What the religious have to realise is that when the tenets of their beliefs are challenged then the response that "because that is what it says in our holy book" or "because that is what I believe" will no longer gain the automatic deference that it used to.

Given that they no longer can rely on their base position or the automatic deference the religious are going to struggle to justify their position. As such the only things they can do are to give up many of the properties of their god and holy book or actively seek to undermine the position of reason and rationality.

262. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189730 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 5:10 am

Comment #189722 by Steve Zara

I don't promote "atheism". I promote "reason".
To invert that, the thing I promote is lack of deference. The religious are fully entitled to their beliefs, but as soon as they make claims as to the way the world and its people came into existence, to the historicity of its holy books or to the validity of it ethical position and tries to present these as true, justified belief which the rest of society should accept and conform to then they must show that these are valid.

The time for the automatic acceptance of the position of religion in society has gone. It should justify itself in exactly the same way as politicians, historians, scientists and philosophers have to.

263. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189710 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 3:12 am

Comment #189709 by Appleby

I'm obviously discussing ideas above everyone's head. It doesn't matter. I'm quite done here
Oh, you were done days ago. All you have managed to show is that you are a misogynistic, homophobic and racist bigot desperately struggling to justify your prejudices. And failing in the process.

264. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189708 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 3:01 am

Comment #189707 by Mitchell Gilks


Why must such a society also permit homosexuality? A completely heterosexual society is still quite capable of zoophilia? How does that follow? It appears to be a complete non sequitur to me.
Logically it is. There is an ethical entailment (whatever that means).

265. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189705 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 2:58 am

Comment #189704 by Appleby

Your claim of bestiality being paraphilia is also insufficiently proven.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5IdO6wisyUUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA239&dq=paraphilia classification&ots=iVD2FuOTdF&sig=H8JAC_nhGReZMFHYItus0bvaBw8#PPA241,M1

266. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189703 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 2:48 am

Comment #189701 by Appleby

There isn't, but you must realize that it automatically entails the permission of homosexuality. A heterosexual society cannot permit bestiality yet prohibit homosexuality.
You have demonstrated no entailment between the two.

As has been noted before, both heterosexuality and homosexuality stem from biology. Zoosexuality is a paraphilia.

267. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189689 by epeeist on June 7, 2008 at 1:47 am

Comment #189686 by clearthinker

I must be missing something. Is it not the oft repeated mantra that atheists do not have a creed; that atheism is just simply the lack of belief in God; that atheists come from many different backgrounds and have many different beliefs so that the only thing that unites you is the lack of belief?
Ah, I see clearthinker has arrived to claim that atheism is, at heart, just another belief system. At least this time he doesn't appear to be claiming that we are fundamentalists.

What he has claimed in the past are that there are tenets to this atheist faith. However, despite much prompting he has never really been able to give a definitive list of these tenets.

268. Blogger spreads the gospel of science

Comment #189561 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Comment #189474 by Tom Coward


Some place names in Maine:
Millinocket (not to be confused with East Millinocket)
Macwahoc
Some places to be found in (the real) Yorkshire

Mytholmroyd
Pigbaner
Gomersal
Shitlingthorpe
Ugglebarnby
Cleckheaton
Goinislong
Giggleswick
Heckmondwike

269. Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

Comment #189541 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Comment #189531 by thewhitepearl

Quetzalcoatl- Yup! Exactly...Bubbles in space time continum.
I thought it was

"Eddies/Eddy's in the space time continuum"

270. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189526 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Comment #189462 by hungarianelephant


Comment #189403 by MaxD on June 6, 2008 at 7:52 am
This pretty much summarises what I was going to post this afternoon, so I can keep this relatively short (thanks, Max).
Good posts. As is not unusual here we get a useful idiot posting that enables a set of ideas to be put forward in counterpoint This informs others of course, rather than the original poster.

271. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189455 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 10:05 am

Comment #189447 by al-rawandi


1) Can you post the link to the Bunglawala article if you could.

He writes in the "Comment is Free" section of the Guardian, his profile will take you to his articles.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/inayatbunglawala
2) Dependence on oil is a huge curse.
If it is one way, then absolutely agree. Mutual dependence can be beneficial.

272. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189443 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 9:33 am

Comment #189394 by al-rawandi

So no deportation of terror and shariah supporters? That is what Fanusi suggests. Plus a ban on immigration of Muslims for several years.
There are problems with this, other than those Elephant raises.

We have this thing called the Commonwealth, a number of countries of which are Muslim. We can reduce immigration from them, but eliminating it completely would be nigh on impossible.

As to deportation, we would have difficulties deporting to states like Saudi Arabia. The thing that screws this the fact that, like you, we are dependent on them for oil and on top of that our politicians seem to like them for some reason. So we take their money and resources, but we also take their particularly virulent people and policies as well. And once we have them we can't get rid of them.

I am not complacent, but I do think things are changing. Have a glance at the responses to articles by Inayat Bunglawala in the Guardian, a paper that I am sure you would consider as "liberal".

273. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189392 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 7:12 am

Comment #189387 by al-rawandi

Well done. With those citations.
Indeed, much better. The only point I was trying to make was that you don't do your case any good by using organs like the Mail as a primary source.
My question is, being a liberal guy, what is your solution for dealing with people that find your lifestyle, your country, your 'beliefs', your wife, your daughters, as worthy of the nastiest contempt.
No faith schools especially those funded from outside the UK, no religious instruction inside schools (comparative religion is okay), no imported imams, no deals with organisations like the MCB, no exemptions in laws because of religious beliefs (two cases near me, one being a child beaten in madrasah and the imam who did it getting away with an admonition and another being a Muslim pharmacist who refused to dispense the morning after pill), no restrictions on where police are allowed to stop and search, more ethical foreign and aid policies, much tighter oversight on arranged foreign marriages.

I am in an audio at the moment, so I am having to switch attention around. But that will do as a starter.

274. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189370 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 6:22 am

Comment #189364 by Fanusi Khiyal


*gives epeeist a look*
I have had this conversation with Al before. If you are going to use the British press as collateral then you would be advised to stick to a small number of publications. For the daily and Sunday papers - the Independent, Guardian/Observer and the Telegraph. The second publication is left wing, the second is right wing. The Times has credibility, but is a Murdoch mouthpiece.

For weeklies, the Economist and Spectator.

Quite honestly, if you try to make a case based in material in the Mail or Express then people in the UK will either not take you seriously or consider you to be a right wing nutter or compatriot (depending on their political stance).

And just to add some additional links to those that irate has posted:

http://www.septicisle.info/labels/Press Complaints Commission.html

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23459186-details/PCC ruling on Heathrow protest by the Camp for Climate Action/article.do

http://www.critest.com/rkp.htm

http://eng.maidanua.org/node/866

275. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189362 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 6:04 am

Comment #189357 by al-rawandi

Can you provide some instance of DM lying or distorting. Simply printing true reports about a despised minority does not make you a racist, it makes you an honest journalist.
Not too difficult to do. Simply do a search for "Daily Mail" and "Press Complaints Council"

Now, it may be that the report that Fanusi linked to is correct. However, it undermines his credibility to use such an organ to further his claims.

EDIT: Make that the "Press Complaints Commission" and add in the Evening Standard, which is part of the Mail group.

276. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189339 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 4:24 am

Comment #189336 by Tyler Durden

Reasons Why Appletart Finds Anal Sex Between Men Repulsive:
6. He is actually a 90lb weakling who plays a Barbarian in Dungeons and Dragons.

277. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189338 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 4:20 am

Comment #189328 by Quetzalcoatl


It does sum up your arguments, but not in the way that you think. Your constant attempts to equate homosexuality with bestiality have failed. They do not equate. Nor would homosexuality and necrophilia, for instance. Your arguments have been shown to be inadequate by many other posters here, yet you seem unable to see that. Perhaps there is a communication problem after all.
Quetz - there isn't a communication problem. Appleby will carry on trying to claim equivalence because that is all he has got. He simply cannot accept that homosexuality is not a psychological disorder of some kind.

His weltanschauung seems to include not only this, but also the view that all black people are intellectually inferior. He also seems to think the role of women should essentially be " Kinder, Kuche, Kirche" since they are again, inferior to men.

278. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189316 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 2:41 am

Comment #189096 by Fanusi Khiyal

Your criticism of the Daily Mail is that irate_atheist does not like it? Shouldn't you show fanusi some place where they actually lied or distorted
Roughly my reaction, al. People keep saying 'Oh, you can get polls to say anything'. Why is it then that I have not heard one single poll that makes me optimistic about the future? Not one .
No, my argument with the DM is that its policy is to give its readers a "daily hate". It panders to racism and Islamophobia.

As such anything printed in it should be treated with suspicion.

279. Blogger spreads the gospel of science

Comment #189304 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 2:08 am

Comment #189248 by Cartomancer

I'm assuming that this Kent in which the peerless PZ Myers was born is not the real Kent in Southeast England where I was born, but a shoddy transatlantic knock-off with no cathedrals, oasthouses or feckless Gravesend dole scroungers anywhere to be seen?
Shouldn't you be complaining about towns like Oxford, Alabama which seems to have a mall, golf course, lake and a bridge but no dreaming spires or intimation of learning at all?

280. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189303 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 2:04 am

Comment #189297 by Appleby

I've presented a spate of cogent arguments, both scientific and ethical, as to why that line is as imaginary as a sky god.
You have presented one argument which I think has only been partially answered, namely if it is wrong to commit zoosexual acts then why isn't it wrong to slaughter animals.

All the rest of your arguments have been shown to be simply reflections of your need to show that homosexuality has a psychological and not genetic basis. It would be useful if one of the contributors who has more of a clue on this topic than I could provide some links to reviewed data on the subject.

281. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189295 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 1:26 am

Comment #189284 by Cartomancer

For a start, you've just gone back to the naturalistic fallacy you so decried a while ago. Is there any consistency to your position, or are you, as Al-Rwandi suggests, simply clutching at any straws in the jar for some shred of rational clothing with which to conceal your scabrous homophobic bigotry?
He raised the naturalistic fallacy when I claimed that there was a biological basis for homosexuality. It is something else he plainly has no idea about since I made no ethical claims based on the biology.

His single idea is to claim equivalence between homosexuality and one particular form of paraphilia, purely to back up his homophobia.

In species terms I think he would rank as a lesser spotted AS Marques.

282. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189061 by epeeist on June 5, 2008 at 10:17 am

Comment #189042 by Fanusi Khiyal


You can read an article on that here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-432075/Multiculturalism-drives-young-Muslims-shun-British-values.html
You shot yourself in the foot with this one. The DM is so vile that irate_atheist won't even buy it for his cat to shit on.

283. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189002 by epeeist on June 5, 2008 at 7:40 am

Not work friendly - http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/mediamonkey/zebra.html

I wonder whether Appleby would approve of bestiality this way around?

284. Ben Stein 1, Yoko Ono 0 in 'Expelled' copyright spat

Comment #188904 by epeeist on June 5, 2008 at 1:40 am

Comment #188902 by mordacious1

Sorry Brits, it is your country and your money but what is their use?
Besides generating tourism? Not an awful lot. They do bits for charity (The Prince's Trust for example), but not enough to justify their existence as far as I am concerned.

Unfortunately if we want to get rid of them then we have to put some constitutional change in place. We need to have a de jure president instead of the de facto one that we have now as prime minister. We need to complete the work on the House of Lords to turn it into a proper second chamber.

This would be the minimum. In my opinion we also need to decentralise more, we have one of the most centralised governmental systems in Europe and it has a heavy London bias. This would enable us to get rid of a whole stack of non-elected bodies that effectively decide and implement policy in the regions.

Finally, we need to get rid of the "first past the post" electoral system and replace it with a more proportionally based system.

285. Ben Stein 1, Yoko Ono 0 in 'Expelled' copyright spat

Comment #188901 by epeeist on June 5, 2008 at 1:11 am

Comment #188897 by Teratornis

Disclaimer: I am a citizen of country which rebelled against said Monarchy. No hard feelings, I trust.
Having got rid the arch loony Blair we have the prospect of arch loony Charles in the future. The quicker we turn the monarchy into a theme park in order to part you Americans from your hard earned dollars the better.
The only way to determine whose fallacy works out to be an error and whose works out to be a useful heuristic is probably just to try them both.
Popper's idea of piecewise social change comes to mind.
The open source movement seems to have demonstrated that copyrights are not essential for stimulating human creativity.
Untrue, the Free Software movement uses copyright to promote the sharing of software.

286. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188896 by epeeist on June 5, 2008 at 12:45 am

One from me then I don't intend to respond any more. We are just going around in circles.

  1. There is sufficient evidence to show that homosexuality has a biological basis
  2. Conversely there is evidence to show that zoosexuality, paedophilia, coprophilia and the like are psychological. They are all examples of paraphilia
  3. As such the attempt to associate homosexuality and paraphilia is therefore invalid
  4. Sexual congress between both heterosexuals and homosexuals is based on consent, anything not based on consent is rape and is not justified either ethically or legally
  5. It is not ethically justified to have sexual congress with a being that is reasonably sentient but cannot give consent, this would include children, humans with limited mental capacity or animals
  6. Disgust at homosexuality (or heterosexuality), unwillingness to associate with homosexuals (or black people) is a personal choice and while it may meet with disapprobation should not be forbidden
  7. However, the objectification of homosexuals, people of different races or genders and the attempt to circumscribe their activities without evidential support is morally (and legally) unacceptable
As I have said before, I think you are trying to justify your loathing (dislike is too weak a word) of homosexuality by attempting to tar it with the brush of a sexual disorder, your attempt has signally failed.

You are lucky that this is the only thing that has been dissected in detail. I find your misogyny and racism equally abhorrent.

287. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188680 by epeeist on June 4, 2008 at 11:31 am

Comment #188670 by al-rawandi

don't support inhumane methods of culling meat. In fact hunting, which the flagrant hypocrites here so foolishy decry, is actually a way of population control.
I would take a slightly more nuanced view.

I definitely supported the bill to get rid of hunting with dogs (note the plural). Dogs pulling down foxes, hare and deer I find abominable. A dog retrieving an animal that has been killed is different.

I also find the practice of shoots in this country where several hundred birds will be shot by a small number of "hunters" to be distasteful.

An individual hunter, killing for the pot I have no problems with at all.

288. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188675 by epeeist on June 4, 2008 at 11:24 am

Comment #188660 by annabanana

Epeeist responded specifically to your claim that it is necessary, and rightly corrected you, to say that it was not is.
It was a bad initial comment on my behalf changing Al's "is" to "was". It might have been better to say "could be".

However, it was a minor point. The major premise was that we now take a strong position on the treatment of animals than we used to do. This therefore undermines at least one of Appleby's points.

In other news - this year's Royal Academy includes a picture of a zebra having sex with a woman - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/7435987.stm

The snippet that I have posted doesn't say whether it is a male zebra or not.

289. Ben Stein 1, Yoko Ono 0 in 'Expelled' copyright spat

Comment #188655 by epeeist on June 4, 2008 at 10:44 am

Comment #188651 by hungarianelephant

Copyright law does not protect information. It protects the form of expression. At its most basic level, this means there's no copyright in an item of news, only in the way in which it is expressed.
I have mixed feelings about the "Intellectual Property" industry (note that I work in the IT industry and am a proponent of free software).

I have no problem with the original intention for copyrights and patents, i.e. "a limited period of time". However, that "limited period" seems to be getting ridiculously long.

The length of time isn't always apposite either. I can see the argument for a long period of protection on such things as drugs which take a long time to research and test. I can't see the validity of an equal protection time for software.

And a better system is required to prevent obvious patents being passed.

290. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #188590 by epeeist on June 4, 2008 at 8:24 am

Comment #186016 by ChristiansTogether

The other person would be (to represent the religious side of the question) David Robertson.
Ah, that scourge of atheist fundamentalists and their tenets. Also, newly self-outed creationist.

291. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188552 by epeeist on June 4, 2008 at 7:47 am

Comment #188538 by Appleby

You can't jump back and forth. Justifying homosexuality (mainly) through science but when it comes to bestiality saying it's now about ethics. Ridiculous.
There is sufficient scientific data to show that homosexuality has a biological basis (look at the behaviour of bononos or macaques for instance).

One might take an ethical position as to whether homosexuals should be celibate or not (or whether heterosexuals should be for that matter).

And as has been pointed out before, both heterosexual and homosexual sex is only considered to be ethical if it is consensual.

Non-consenual sex or sex with a sentient being who cannot give consent is ethically wrong.

As I noted first thing this morning what you are doing is the inverse of the "pathetic fallacy". You are trying to generate distaste for homosexuality by associating it with bestiality.

292. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188535 by epeeist on June 4, 2008 at 7:29 am

Comment #188524 by hungarianelephant


Then ethically, perhaps it can be argued that homosexuality should be outlawed. Wait... in many parts of the world it is! Maybe their ethics are different. But wait... yours is the correct one, right?
Ooh, moral relativism. How original.
The ennui is too great to allow me to track back, but in a previous response to a question of mine he claimed he "didn't want to get into whether there were objective moral values or not" (paraphrase rather than quotation).

293. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188499 by epeeist on June 4, 2008 at 6:54 am

Comment #188493 by Steve Zara

Dogs just love to run, however.
Until they can't any more. The treatment of greyhounds after this happens isn't pleasant.

294. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188496 by epeeist on June 4, 2008 at 6:52 am

Comment #188479 by al-rawandi

I mean no disrespect, but that vegetarian thing is nonsense IMHO.
Don't worry about the disrespect, this is an open argument after all.
The reason is that amino acids are different in plants than they are in meat, for a truly healthy and balanced diet one needs both plant amino acids as well as animal.
I do an amount of nutritional work with my pupils of course, but I wouldn't say I am anything of an expert. My understanding is that one can supplement a vegetarian diet to make up for the amino acids one cannot synthesise. More than happy to have more detail on this.

Having said that, it is a minor point. The major thing is that we have an increasing ethical awareness of the way we treat animals. Bringing it back to the general theme of this site, I suspect that this is partially due to the idea of common descent.

295. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188475 by epeeist on June 4, 2008 at 6:22 am

Comment #188468 by al-rawandi

Thus eating meat is a necessary part of the human diet.
A minor amendation, I would change is to was.

I don't know what it is like in the States but there is a growing population of vegetarians in the UK, and it seems to be increasing. While I know one or two people who are vegetarians because they simply don't like handling meat, the majority take an ethical stance towards killing and eating animals.

Which rather undermines Appleby's ideas on the "progress" of zoophilia over the next 100 years.

Note: Elder daughter would be vegan apart from the fact that you can't get non-leather shoes that wouldn't lower your position on the fashion ladder.

296. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188463 by epeeist on June 4, 2008 at 5:57 am

Comment #188462 by Appleby

You're assuming: sex with animals = cruelty.

This needs to be demonstrated scientifically. Now which animal would you like to start with?
It isn't a scientific question, it is an ethical one.

297. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188335 by epeeist on June 4, 2008 at 12:56 am

Comment #188291 by Cartomancer

I wonder, I really do, why you persist in equating homosexuality with zoophilia.
A sort of inverse of the pathetic fallacy would be my guess.

298. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188205 by epeeist on June 3, 2008 at 10:46 am

Comment #188198 by Bonzai

You can't be serious. IMO that is a horrible flick.
How about "La Cage aux Folles"?

299. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188189 by epeeist on June 3, 2008 at 10:21 am

Comment #188185 by annabanana

Erm, there is? Didn't get it. Maybe you're being sarcastic and you forgot your sarcasm tags.
Nah, just an ideal opportunity to wind Al up. Couldn't resist it.

300. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188173 by epeeist on June 3, 2008 at 9:51 am

Comment #188170 by al-rawandi


The men are at least, because they don't deal with women....

*ducks*
Annabanana - PM for you.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next