Comments by Appleby

251. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187411 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 5:49 am

Comment #187409 by AllanW

You have not presented reasonable refutations of the reason I gave. I think you were expecting something else. I've answered your question, now scurry off!

252. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187410 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 5:46 am

Comment #187404 by Peacebeuponme

Why do you assume that kids who are not adopted by gay parents will necessarily have no parents? Do you think there aren't enough straight parents to adopt children? Or are gay parents adopting the kids the straight parents don't want?

And like I said, I don't know whether having gay parents is better than no parents. I assume having straight parents is better than no parents but I don't know about gay parents being better (unless you assume there's no difference).

253. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187405 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 5:30 am

Comment #187402 by AllanW

Okay. A society where men fuck exclusively women is better off than one where men fuck other men, cats, goats, dogs etc. (the list of animals goes on) is better because of 1) procreation of the species and 2) disease control. Now I don't have hard evidence for the latter (not very many societies quite like that yet) but I think it's fair to assume that there are likely to be more diseases when you put an endless list of animals into the mix. These reasons are right off the top of my head.

254. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187401 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 5:23 am

Comment #187400 by The Reverend Dark

I'm sorry but your response is not very scientific and what the West has "agreed upon" is no basis for an argument. I would argue that consent between humans is reasonable but to stretch this to animals needs further justification. I would say one simply does not need consent from an animal to fuck it much like one does not need the consent of a chicken to slaughter it.

By the way, does this mean you disagree with AllanW in his support for the right of men to fuck animals?

255. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187398 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 5:13 am

Comment #187392 by AllanW

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.

I didn't mean it like that. This is why I used the words, "your kind of liberalism". Your support for privacy, freedom of expression etc. entails support for homosexuality (and apparently sex with animals too).

256. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187396 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 5:09 am

Comment #187391 by The Reverend Dark

Please explain why consent is a fundamental issue when it comes to sexual relations. And please, articulate how this standard is equally applied to animals and humans. Do we need the consent of chickens and cows before we slaughter them?

257. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

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

Comment #187385 by Peacebeuponme

I didn't say not having any parents is better than gay parents (I don't know if it's better or not, do you?). 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.

258. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187388 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 4:57 am

Comment #187387 by Quetzalcoatl

Because no evidence has been provided for it. And it implied all gays are like that, which I doubt (from a strictly scientific standpoint).

259. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187386 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 4:53 am

Comment #187379 by Quetzalcoatl

I never said they can't. You tend to exaggerate if you'll forgive my saying so.

260. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187381 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 4:52 am

Comment #187377 by AllanW

I could replace 'fucking cats' with 'homosexuality' almost word-for-word in your post (refer Comment #187371). And that's my point. You essentially have no reason to stop people from fucking cats (or any other animal for that matter) because of your support for homosexuality.

And if I have to explain to you why a society where men fuck exclusively women is better off than one where men fuck other men, cats, goats and dogs then you clearly have some twisted ideas.

261. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187378 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 4:47 am

Comment #187375 by Peacebeuponme

Appleby, do you concede that having gay parents is better than no parents? If so, then there is no logigal reason to deny altruistic, compassionate and loving gays the chance to adopt.

I think that's quite an assumption you're making about gays.

262. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187374 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 4:42 am

Comment #187371 by AllanW

I thought you might say something like that. This is the problem with your kind of liberalism. You have no choice but to extend the line (and don't pretend we don't have to draw it somewhere). In fairness, I'm perhaps tempted to draw the line earlier than may be necessary. The question is, in which case is society better off?

263. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187365 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 3:54 am

Comment #187361 by AllanW

Well what if I liked fucking my cat in the privacy of my own house? Would you draw the line there? Based on what?

264. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187358 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 3:30 am

Comment #187175 by Mitchell Gilks

I suppose what you're saying is right. But where then, do we draw the line?

265. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187172 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 11:57 am

Comment #187163 by Quetzalcoatl

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1704660,00.html

266. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187171 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 11:55 am

Comment #187152 by Corylus

So what are you saying? "Normal" guys are not supposed to find butt sex disgusting? And by the way, it wasn't so much the butt sex between men that disgusted me as it was the blowjob that followed (refer Comment #187130 by Appleby).

267. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187160 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 11:46 am

Comment #187157 by Quetzalcoatl

What's the big deal about homosexuals living in their own communities? They already have their own gay bars and seem to like it. They might like their own communities too. I'm not talking about "putting" gays anywhere. My guess is they'd choose their own communities given the chance.

And I don't remember where exactly I read about gay couples being less faithful than straight couples. I think it was a recent issue of Time Magazine.

268. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187154 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 11:37 am

Comment #187147 by epeeist

Well, up a few notches from regular guys (for having the stomach to do the job) but down a few if you actually liked the smell of shit.

269. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

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

Comment #187145 by MaxD

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. At least then we can talk and joke about more stuff (e.g. girls).

As for adopting children, if science has shown that there are no short or long-term detrimental psychological effects on the kids, then I suppose it's okay. But I'm not sure how strong the evidence for that might be. I'm also not sure we should risk it. I suppose some might say that in science, we have to assume there are no such effects until it is proven so. Science also tells us that gay couples are less faithful to each other. Does this have an impact on the adopted kids? Assuming it's a gay couple and not a gay individual that did the adopting, that is. There are many issues to be sorted out.

270. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187144 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 11:07 am

Comment #187141 by MaxD

Well he might not like you so much if you are so "open" about your like of mustard. It reminds him of it and makes him sick. This is normal.

271. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187142 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 11:05 am

Comment #187139 by Colwyn Abernathy

Persecution? Who ever said anything about persecution on the basis of disgust?

Comment #187140 by AllanW

For the last time, I don't discriminate based on my disgust. (refer Comment #187119 by Appleby)

272. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187138 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 10:57 am

Comment #187136 by phil rimmer

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

273. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187133 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 10:50 am

Comment #187131 by Colwyn Abernathy

I was continuously being asked for details why I found homosexuality "disgusting", so I explained it. That's all.

274. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

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

Comment #187128 by MaxD

Well let's say you knew a guy who liked the taste of his own shit. You might find that disgusting, despite the fact that he tastes it in the privacy of his own house.

In a similar way, I find the shoving of male penises into assholes of other men disgusting. Now if a blowjob ensued, I suppose it would be kind of like tasting another guy's shit (and liking it). This is now closer to the case above.

And in case you're wondering, I don't blow my own dick after fucking my girlfriend in the ass. And she doesn't have a dick.

Is this explicit enough an explanation for you?

275. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

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

Comment #187125 by MaxD

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.

276. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187121 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 10:12 am

Comment #187117 by phil rimmer

Really? According to whom?

277. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

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

I suppose the main argument to treat homosexuals as equals (rather than persecute them as was done rampantly in the past) is that they are human too. Therefore, if they can be shown to not be "human" in some way (this is not necessarily a physical attribute) that would warrant negating them some rights (e.g. adopting children or living in the same communities as straight people). Cannibalism for example, may be an attribute that makes you "less human". I suppose *something* could be found in that regard pertaining to homosexuals.

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. If such evidence then presented itself to support said contention, I might have to consider the possibility of accepting it as true after all. MaxD, does this answer your question?

278. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187114 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 9:56 am

MaxD,

This is what I asked phil. He has yet to answer. Before we get sidetracked, I'd like him to address this question, if he can.

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?

279. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187108 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 9:50 am

Comment #187103 by phil rimmer

It's not for me to choose. You asked a question and I answered it. I'm not sure what exactly the criteria are for differentiating between men and animals (we can use orangutans as an example) but whatever criteria they are (and they must exist, because we don't consider orangutans to be human), those are examples of criteria that can be used.

Now let's hear you respond.

280. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187102 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 9:44 am

Comment #187091 by MaxD

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

281. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187099 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 9:41 am

Comment #187096 by phil rimmer

Well I'm not sure. How do we tell the difference between an orangutan and a man?

282. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

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

Comment #187078 by phil rimmer

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.

283. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187088 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 9:27 am

MaxD wrote:

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?

Well what do people mean when they say men and women are equal? Do they mean in every way?

284. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187079 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 9:18 am

Comment #187074 by Mitchell Gilks

Put simply, in science, an hypothesis must be falsifiable.

285. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

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

phil,

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?

286. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187071 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 9:04 am

Mitchell Gilks wrote:

(*rollseyes*) Perhaps you should read it first. In the section labled "Evaluating hypotheses" you will find Epeeist's point made, and that you are wrong.

I don't get his point. I assumed he was saying that I need to "disprove" some hypothesis. An hypothesis, by definition, has yet to be proven in the first place.

287. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187066 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 8:56 am

Mitchell, what is the status quo on the issue of say, male superiority over women? Now, whatever scientific evidence you present to support the contention that men and women are equal (in whatever sense), do you not suppose I could find similar evidence to the contrary if I really tried? What do you think?

288. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187063 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 8:52 am

epeeist wrote:

Perhaps you ought to go and read something about the way science is done before you advance your "opinion". I would suggest this as a starter - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Perhaps you should read this.

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

289. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187057 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 8:35 am

epeeist wrote:

If you knew anything about the philosophy of science or statistics you would know that you are looking to disprove a hypothesis by critical test rather than looking for verification.

An hypothesis hardly needs disproving. Perhaps I am just looking for equally strong evidence to the contrary. Where would we be then?

290. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

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

noodly_noodleson wrote:

But yes, I would accept convincing evidence regardless of my personal feelings; that is why I am an atheist.

Hallelujah! Finally the answer I was looking for. This means that it is not in fact, inconceivable to be what you might call a misogynist, bigot or homophobe. 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?

291. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187025 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 5:40 am

epeeist wrote:

Do I sound superior enough? I should note that my pupils have been both male and female.

I could probably take you with my centuries-old samurai sword.

292. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187018 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 4:50 am

rod-the-farmer wrote:

Sorry, Appleby, but I found your "Why should I have to live with this" offensive. YOU are the one who is damaged.

But then as I read more and more of your comments, I found even more reasons plural to consider your opinions offensive. If I may be so bold as to offer a suggestion, you should shut up now. The more you say, the worse you appear. In the minds of many, I suspect, you have become a jerk who though articulate, none of us would want you marrying our sister. Or even dating her.

To quote Christopher Hitchens, you use the term "offensive" as if it's some kind of argument.

293. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186979 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 2:28 am

AllanW,

Your pathetic attempts to demonize me is what really reeks of religion. If I'm talking above your head, I apologize.

294. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186971 by Appleby on June 1, 2008 at 1:57 am

noodly_noodleson wrote:

You seem to be under the impression that your opinions are somehow revolutionary, whereas the more visceral reactions you accuse everyone of having to them seem to stem in part from the fact that they are quite similar to the opinions religion has been vomiting at humanity for ages.

This similarity is of no significance. Your association to them is unwarranted. I mentioned this in my first post with regard to the article above.

Perhaps I don't necessarily believe what some [atheistic] evolutionary biologists say about the matter (one can probably find another scientist who says [the Earth is only 6000 years old]).
There, fixed that for you. But do go on comparing everyone else to dogmatists.

This is a strawman. Two *legitimate* scientists can indeed have differing opinions on certain matters. Whom to believe is then left up to us to decide (based on experience, preference etc.).

As Mitchell said, the studies that have been done have shown little difference in intelligence between men and women, yet you clearly don't seem happy with these results, as you keep arguing the hypothetical. How about "Sex differences in self-estimates on two validated IQ test subscale scores" (Furnham, Crawshaw, Rawles)? It states that while IQ averages are generally the same between sexes, men tend to overestimate their own intelligence and the intelligence of men in general. Would you say that's accurate?

I *am* talking about hypotheticals. Stop making this about me. Let me ask you this. What IF repeated studies showed that women were inferior to men in 90% of standard intellectual tests? Would you then accept the inferiority of women? Given how you feel about the issue now? Would it kill you if the "truth" (as far as we can tell) was actually that? Could you possibly accept it? This says a lot about you.

295. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186917 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 7:16 pm

Whoa calm down, Mitchell.

You are misrepresenting what I said and running with your own misinterpretations of it. This is not the mark of an educated person, I'm sorry to say.

In the question of the superiority of men over women, it's not about superiority in certain tasks or in all cases. It's more about cumulatively, when we don't have the latest scientific studies with regard to the matter in hand (and most of the time, we don't). When a decision about who should have the final say about things is required for example, that's when this "judgement" should kick in. I suppose you are now thinking of situations where women would be the best judge (e.g. cooking or childcare) but it's possible that the scientific data on that would contradict you. The point is, you use judgements like this in any case (i.e. the "we-all-know" type arguments) but apparently prefer the ones that are politically correct or in line with your own beliefs.

I would be willing to accept for example, if the truth of the matter was that women are actually overall superior to men (I think you would too but strangely not the reverse, am I right?) regardless of how I feel about the issue personally. What differentiates people like me from people like you is that you are actually predisposed to cherry-picking which truths you wish to subscribe to in the same way that say, creationists try to gain scientific credibility for their beliefs.

296. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186900 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 5:28 pm

AllanW wrote:

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.

You've misunderstood me (which is not surprising). What I've been saying has nothing to do with religion. I just don't want atheism to become like a religion. I actually prefer having something of a slight (forgive me) moral superiority over religious people but am finding it more and more difficult to justify. Perhaps we were better off remaining in the closet.

297. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

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

GBiles wrote:

(Although it is not my bussiness, I wonder what about homosexuals you find disgusting. The use of an anus for insertion of a penis, or specifically that it is a male anus? Two males living together (like roommates on campus)? What?)

Does it matter? Personally I think males and females evolved for partnership with each other and homosexuals are an aberration in nature, which is not uncommon. Are you able to be objective about answers like this or will you be tempted to label me a bigot? If you are tempted to silence me for my opinion (perhaps also incite others for support) - in the fear that other people might also find it justified - then you've illustrated my point in all this quite nicely.

Preferring the company of beautiful women and shunning the ugly ones is priceless. You might have to avoid your mother, sister, doctor, boss for all I know. What a life.

I thought it was obvious I was referring to the women I date.

298. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

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

epeeist wrote:

You have said that half the population should have a different standard of behaviour applied to them purely on the basis of their gender.

I said nothing about standards. I merely stated my personal opinion on the matter and pointed out your remarkable ability to (in principle) accept only truths that conform to your standards.

You have intimated that you would treat people differently because of the colour of their skin or their sexuality, not because of any evidence but just because of personal "opinion" (which is in fact simply prejudice).

I said it depends on a variety of factors. 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?

299. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186895 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Mitchell Gilks wrote:

This is absolutely and completely absurd. It is the complete opposite that is true. It has been historically (and still is in many places) the case that women were considered inferior, and subserviant to men. It has always been the rational, and the intelligent that has demonstrated the complete lack of backing for this position.

Most notably because what is "better" is a value judgement, not a statement of fact. It is absurd to suggest that one can demonstrate an "objective value". Nothing is better than anything else objectively. That is completely a matter of opinion, and arbitrarily determined, not rationally or evidentiarily determined. Or it is contingent on context. Better at something. In which case there is nothing that all men are better than all women at, and visa versa.

You have it completely backward. It has historically been the uneducated irrational masses that believe men to be superior, and the rational and sophisticated intelligencia to show the absurdity of such a position. I'm done bothering with your idiocy.

So I suppose even if the evidence of men's superioriry over women (let's say intellectual) were to become virtually incontrovertible one day, you would still have trouble accepting it because it goes against what you prefer to believe. This sounds almost religious to me.

It also kind of reminds me about all this talk about torture "having been shown by science" to be ineffective in extracting the truth from people. Can we not deal even with the possibility - look at some of the immature reactions so far on this board - that it may be the most effective method? What do we do, then? Why does the "truth" have to conform with what we think "should be the case"? I'm beginning to think there really is a kind of inherent tendency toward dogmatism in people. And that doesn't make it right.

300. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

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

Phil Rimmer wrote:

But we do deal with troublesome groups of individuals. Criminals we lock up. You need to have good evidence though.

It's not the same thing. Criminals we can all agree deserve to be locked up. But how about when the decision is more difficult? 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. It's not the actual "agreeing" with it that matters but how we handle the possibility of having to deal with its truth, if ever demonstrated.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next