Quantcast

«

»

Aug 08 2013

[Thunderdome]

This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.

Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread

687 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 501
    Amphiox

    and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness

    Good. Then those who fight for same sex equality should continue to fight for same sex equality. Those who fight for women’s equality should continue to fight for women’s equality. Those who fight for fair working conditions should continue to fight for fair working conditions. Those who fight for fair immigration laws should continue to fight for fair immigration laws. Those who fight for universal access single payer healthcare should continue to fight for universal access single payer healthcare. Those who fight for rational gun control measures should continue to fight for rational gun control measures. Those who fight for a woman’s autonomy over her own uterus should continue to do so.

    All these are manifestly, obviously, good, just and righteous things. It appears that even your god, texpip, commands that liberals and progressives continue to fight for liberal and progressive causes.

  2. 502
    Owlmirror

    As long as I’m asking questions that txpiper won’t answer:

    txpiper, do you accept the scientific facts that the age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and that the age of the universe is about 13.8 billion years old?

  3. 503
    anteprepro

    No, you wouldn’t. But for this dispensation, which is about to wrap up, it looks like this:

    “Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.”

    God’s program is to make sure that things stay the same and that he never has to get off of his ass to do anything. Gotcha. For an all-powerful, all-knowing entity who used to kill people for “Doin’ It Wrong”, he sure has a strange laissez-faire attitude that borders on laziness and defeatism when it suits him. Strange, but I’m sure it doesn’t bother you in the least! I’m sure you still think Your God is an Awesome God even while arguing that his “program” is just to sit and watch the status quo being the status quo. Your comfort in that dissonance is why everyone here laughs at you. Well, it’s one of the several reasons.

  4. 504
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    “Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.”

    Religious bullshit. Your deity doesn’t exist, you haven’t proven it does, and you haven’t demonstrated your holy book isn’t mythology/fiction. Your religion is nothing but two fallacious presuppositions, which makes any conclusions based on them pure and utter bullshit. Just like everything you say. Bullshit.

  5. 505
    Pteryxx

    “Holy holy holy, Status Quo almighty!”

  6. 506
    Dalillama, Schmott Guy

    Chigau
    A quick Google reveals that that was, indeed, Rev 22:11

  7. 507
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Fuck me, but sometimes I want to break things. Annejones is bad enough, but now I read scienceavenger’s homophobic prison rape comment in the YouTube thread??!!
    Thank you to everyone who spoke up.
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/14/what-responsible-intelligent-youtubers-inconceivable/comment-page-1/#comment-669463

  8. 508
    annejones

    Really? No-one wants to address the fact that all these studies that support homosexual parenting as being highly questionable??

    *Abstract…In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief on lesbian and gay parenting. This brief included the assertion: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents” (p. 15). The present article closely examines this assertion and the 59 published studies cited by the APA to support it. Seven central questions address: (1) homogeneous sampling, (2) absence of comparison groups, (3) comparison group characteristics, (4) contradictory data, (5) the limited scope of children”s outcomes studied, (6) paucity of long-term outcome data, and (7) lack of APA-urged statistical power. The conclusion is that strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted. Recommendations for future research are offered.

    Highlights… 26 of 59 APA studies on same-sex parenting had no heterosexual comparison groups. In comparison studies, single mothers were often used as the hetero comparison group. No comparison study had the statistical power required to detect a small effect size. Definitive claims were not substantiated by the 59 published studies.*

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

  9. 509
    annejones

    See; now you’re contradicting what you just posted above. There’s no mention of the biological mother and father not being rapists, abusers, neglectful, or deadbeats. So presumably you’re perfectly OK with a “family” containing one or more of the above.

    Which is it?

    I’m starting to think you’re heterophobic. You do realize that not all biological parents are rapists, abusers, neglectful, or deadbeats, right??

    I’m going to say this one last time, then I’m going to start totally ignoring arguments along this line. No one favors allowing those kinds of people to keep children, even if they are the biological parents.

    Kids are forced into existence by biology. They’re forced to have parents who will sometimes discipline them. They’re forced to have parents who will, sometimes, not give them what they want. They’re forced to have parents who will sometimes do less than entirely pleasant things to them for their own good, like baths, teeth brushing, and vaccinations. They’re forced to have parents who will sometimes not give them a cookie!!!!!!!

    How terrible for them, to be so forced!

    Riiiiiight. Because having to spend your entire life playing make believe that 2 men or 2 women can be your parents is the same thing as being denied a cookie.

    what a “normal” family is depends on time and culture.

    No actually the normal family has always been the same until homosexuals came along trying to infest society with the belief that their way is normal too.

    And children usually see their own family as what is “normal” anyway.

    You think they don’t realize that they’re usually the only one in their class that claims to have 2 mommies or 2 daddies?? Eventually they catch on and see that it isn’t normal.

    But religious people do try to force their children to believe the same nonsense that the parents believe! That”s what indoctrination is!

    All parents impart into their children what they want them to believe. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. If and when you have kids, you’ll have to make choices on how to guide them just like all other parents before you have had to make. That’s not indoctrination, it’s parental guidance and it’s a necessary part of parenting.

    Silly ignorant bigot. Homosexual parenting, like single parenting, exists in nature.

    Yeah because if it’s good enough for animals then it’s good enough for children too, right??

    Pfft. What blithering nonsense. Children have a right to have loving parents, and since homosexuals can be loving parents, the children have what they have the right to have.

    They also have a right to some semblance of normalcy and decency, some semblance of moral upbringing.

    The only one who wants to enslave children is you, by giving them to rapists, abusers, negligent, and/or deadbeat parents.

    Yep that settles it, you’re a heterophobic bigot.

    Sure it is. You just proved it above by contradicting yourself, and saying that the “gold standard” is biological parents ” with no mention of the quality of parenting being provided.

    If the biological parents will not provide good quality parenting, what should happen? Should the children. . . maybe be taken away from them?

    Yes, if it can be shown that the biological parents are abusing or neglecting the kids then yes they should be taken away.

    If you don”t like it, you need to re-think your own position. The fact that you suck as a debater is your own problem.

    You’re the one that keeps repeating the strawman even though I’ve repeatedly stated a belief to the contrary. If you were a good debater you wouldn’t need to make up arguments that I’ve never made.

    Pfft. You’re not a bigot because reproductive biology exists; you’re a bigot because you hate homosexuals.

    I don’t hate anyone. If I dislike a homosexual it’s because that homosexual is an a-hole. I do however, plead guilty to hating homosexuality because of it’s effects on society.

    Excellent. So God eliminates the potential negatives or risk factors in same-sex parenting, because humans ” including homosexual humans ” are made in the image of God.

    Problem solved!

    You shouldn’t dream while you type.

    So Isabella Miller should not exist, right?

    Don’t go there.

    Please explain your asinine, stupid, moronic, idiotic theory on how additional reproductive methods can possibly result in man “destroying himself”.

    I don’t even feel like getting into this one.

    Why are you using a computer, if you hate technology so much? Why not live like the Amish, or the Bedouin?

    I’m not against technology but I am against playing God. Seriously, why do we need to be able to make humans through that method?? What purpose does that serve?? Many on the left scream about over population, yet they’re still pursuing even more ways to create life, cloning, etc. I realize the possibility that other discoveries could come from that research that would be beneficial, but if that technology works what value would it provide??

  10. 510
    mildlymagnificent

    Many on the left scream about over population, yet they’re still pursuing even more ways to create life, cloning, etc. I realize the possibility that other discoveries could come from that research that would be beneficial, but if that technology works what value would it provide??

    Value? Probably much the same value as that to women and men who would have been infertile 100 or more years ago but modern medicine provides simple hormonal or surgical remedies so that they can have children in much the same way as people who didn’t start out with those impediments to reproduction.

    Or do you argue that only some modern medicine should be used for reproduction.

  11. 511
    Nick Gotts

    Ichthyic,

    Did you know that members of the former government of the MB (because, really, that’s what it was), are currently indicted for plotting to murder protesters to the MB regime, PRIOR to the military taking over?

    Yes. They may well be guilty, but we’ll likely never know, because the chances of them getting a fair trial under a military junta are near zero.

    Did you know that when the Egyptian police mention detaining witnesses and suspects during the breakup of the MB protests, that those were related to the former?

    Where is this information coming from? Could it possibly be from junta sources? Do you think they are credible sources of information? If so, do your parents know you’re looking at blogs where people sometimes use naughty words?

    Please don’t be thinking the MB is the innocent in all of this.

    Find anything I’ve said anywhere that implies that I think that. My main points throughout the original argument with theophontes were:

    1) That I supported the anti-Morsi demonstrators until they began calling for a military coup. Their alternative – if they really believed they had the overwhelming level of popular support they claimed – was clear: a series of general strikes and a call for Parliamentary elections as soon as possible.

    2) That the MB clearly did not have the capability to establish a dictatorship, whatever their intentions, because they lacked the support of the armed forces, as evidenced by the burning down of their Cairo HQ by their opponents, without security force interference.

    Plenty of people tried to discourage the use of force to end those protests, but the recent protests were hardly peaceful, either. Lots of evidence of kidnapping, assaults on Coptic churches and people, amassing of weapons, etc. etc.

    Yes, plenty of people tried to discourage the massacres, but what General Al-Sisi says, goes. There may well have been such activities, but again, where does the evidence come from? I warned that there would be an increase in attacks on Copts when the fuckwitted Coptic Pope appeared in support of the coup in public.

    There never was a democracy in Egypt. It was a dream that is still many years away from fulfillment.

    Of course, and I never said otherwise. But the way to establish a democracy is not a military coup. note what happened in algeria when the Islamists won the first ropund of a general election and the army launched a coup: an extremely bloody civil war, followed by a military dictatorship that is still continuing, more than 20 years later. Egypt is now pretty much back where it was in 2011, having replaced one military dictator with another, who is merely holding a civilian figleaf in place to reduce his arms suppliers’ embarrassment. The pro-democracy movement surrendered the initiative as soon as it began calling for army intervention. The junta has now arrogated to itself the right to arrest anyone it wants, and control all forms of travel and communication. If you really believe they are doing that in the interests of democracy rather than in that of their own wealth and power, or that they will confine their attentions to Islamists, you’re a fool, like theophontes.

  12. 512
    theophontes (恶六六六缓步动物)

    [previous iteration]

    @ Nick Gotts

    In your answer to me, you left off this part:

    Still supporting the military junta in Egypt?

    I do not.

    For the more obtuse, let me repeat: I do not.

    Leaving that out of your response at #422 kinda distorts everything don’t you think?

    I haven’t told any lies.

    Nah, you just omit stuff when it suits you.

    had a chance to make their will known in elections

    Which they did, to their later remorse.

    …pick sides…

    “theophontes: I wish there was a better way, a third way.”

    You missed this bit. I think they went about this wrongly from the onset. By rushing into the elections, the Brotherhood was boosted into power by the halo effect. When the honeymoon ended, in large part due to the Brotherhood, it all went pear shaped. I think, sadly, that the Egyptians did everything back-to-front. First a constitution should have been established. Issues should have been thrashed out prior to to going into elections. This would have also created the opportunity to allow alternatives to the MB to build up their organisational capacity.

    The picking of sides is actually an anethma to resolving political issues. Concensus politics is quite something different. It may be slow and very difficult, but at least it can deliver in situations such as these. Do you at least concede that there is another manner in which this situation can be conceptualised?

    @ chigau

    I don’t think annejones remembers where she left her blog.
    Should I link it?

    That should provide some light entertainment, please do.

    @ Nerd

    You have a program:
    10 “print I am stupid”: goto 10

    XD

    FIFY:

    2000 CLS
    2010 PRINT “I am stupid.”
    2020 PRINT
    2030 GOTO 2010

    Cut and paste into this BASIC Program: Link-Quite Basic

  13. 513
    ledasmom

    annejones:

    Since you favor homosexuals adopting kids, which requires removing one or the other parental role, which role is most expendable, the mother or the father?? This is where it gets tricky for you, so be careful

    What you don’t seem to understand is that many of us don’t see “mother” and “father” as separate roles. This isn’t tricky for us.
    Incidentally: married twenty-one years. Two children.

  14. 514
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    AnneJones, didn’t even bother to read your bigoted screed, and only one reference doesn’t refute the scores of studies that show homosexual parents don’t harm children, and are good for children. There are bigoted fuckwits like you who do get their presuppositional studies published, and those studies are immediately refuted by real evidence.

    You can’t demonstrate harm from homosexual parents. You can’t demonstrate anything. All you can do is show the world you are a hateful bigot without empathy. Your deity doesn’t exist. Your bible is a book of mythology/fiction. So everything you claim comes from one source. Your bigoted mind.

    The Redhead and I have been married forty years. You cannot show any demonstrable damage to our marriage by her gay cousin marrying his long term partner. All you can do is show your irrational hate and anger.

  15. 515
    Lofty

    Dear annejones, as I am a man, is it wrong that I can:
    change a nappy
    wash the dishes
    vacuum the house
    do the shopping
    cook a meal
    hang out the washing
    hug a distressed child or partner?
    Does this make me less of a man? Should I tremble at your disproval?
    I am quite happy doing any of those thing when I am needed to. It never seemed like a big deal to share parenting roles when the need arose. Oh and some weeks my wife makes more money than I do. Should I cry?

  16. 516
    annejones

    Again, allow me to emphasise this part AGAIN since you guys keep insisting about the reliability of the studies that support gay parenting and the apparent positive welfare of kids raised by them:

    *Abstract…In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief on lesbian and gay parenting. This brief included the assertion: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents” (p. 15). The present article closely examines this assertion and the 59 published studies cited by the APA to support it. Seven central questions address: (1) homogeneous sampling, (2) absence of comparison groups, (3) comparison group characteristics, (4) contradictory data, (5) the limited scope of children”s outcomes studied, (6) paucity of long-term outcome data, and (7) lack of APA-urged statistical power. The conclusion is that strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted. Recommendations for future research are offered.

    Highlights… 26 of 59 APA studies on same-sex parenting had no heterosexual comparison groups. In comparison studies, single mothers were often used as the hetero comparison group. No comparison study had the statistical power required to detect a small effect size. Definitive claims were not substantiated by the 59 published studies.*

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

    Really?? 26 out of this group of 59 studies supporting homosexual parenting had “no heterosexual comparison groups”?? Single mothers are being used as a hetero comparison group?? And this is your APA supporting these studies and their outcomes.

    Are you SERIOUSLY telling me that there’s nothing wrong with this picture you’re trying to present?

  17. 517
    Nick Gotts

    theophontes,

    It’s you doing the distorting. @422 I said:

    I haven’t told any lies. It’s not a soccer match, but yes, we did pick sides. You supported the coup (while refusing to admit that’s what you were doing), I opposed it. Anyone who wants can go back to this thread, and see the likes of this:

    So why are you supporting a military coup? – me

    No. I wish there was a better way, a third way. Having said that though, I am currently of the opinion that the Egyptian people have made their will known. – you

    So in fact, of the two items you say I “omitted” (I wasn’t going to quote everything both of us said, and anyone who wants can go back and check the record), I actually quoted one directly, contrary to your claim @512, along with the context which makes clear that while you say you don’t support it, you’re full of excuses for it. Which anyone can see repeated again and again on the original thread.

    had a chance to make their will known in elections

    Which they did, to their later remorse.

    That’s plain dishonest, because you can’t possibly know which side is in the majority. Yes, huge crowds came out against Morsi – and some among them were able to burn down the MB HQ without security force interference. Since his overthrow, large crowds have come out for him, under military threat; and given previous election results, it’s likely his support is concentrated in rural areas, where it is much harder to mobilize mass demonstrations. Parliamentary elections – which were supposed to be upcoming, and which the MB, but not the opposition, were pressing for – would have given the Egyptian people a chance to elect a counterweight to Morsi if they so wished, with a more recent mandate. A general strike could have demonstrated the overwhelming opposition to Morsi, if indeed it was as large as claimed. But you claimed – falsely – that the opposition had no alternative but to call for a coup.

    Do you at least concede that there is another manner in which this situation can be conceptualised?

    WTF are you talking about? Here we have a military coup, a brutal crackdown involving at the very least hundreds of deaths, large-scale imprisonment without trial, a state of emergency giving effective total power to the army – and you’re wittering on about “consensus politics”, and “another manner in which this situation can be conceptualised”. You can’t even bring yourself to express any disapproval of the killings of yesterday. Pah!

  18. 518
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    @annejones #454

    As such, no, “homosexual parent” is not self-contradictory,

    A (one) homosexual can be A parent, but two homosexuals together can’t be “parents”. Parents, whether biological, adoptive, or step-parents, consist of a mother and father figure. A child raised by homosexuals can logically, at most, only have one mother or one father, the other one is just the one that the parent is playing house with. Even if I gave you that they have two mother or two fathers, that’s still only more of the same that the one homosexual parent provides, so there still aren’t any “parents”, plural.

    you contemptible sack of manure.

    Umm…seeing as though you seem to like putting your weiner in that stuff, I feel sexually harassed by that comment.

    Wow, I made this comment ages ago, and you’re just replying to it now? You’ve replied to comments I made more recently than this before you replied to this one!

    However…

    A (one) homosexual can be A parent, but two homosexuals together can’t be “parents”. Parents, whether biological, adoptive, or step-parents, consist of a mother and father figure.

    I see someone does not understand plurality. One homosexual can be a parent, yes? Then two of them must be parents. If they are raising a child together, then especially so.

    English: how the fuck does it work?

    A child raised by homosexuals can logically, at most, only have one mother or one father…

    You are yet again conflating “parent” and “biological parent” (everyone can only have one biological mother or one biological father, you pillock). Here, this might help. We are using “parent” in sense 4; whereas you seem to flit between 1, 4 and 5 depending what fits your argument better. This is dishonest, and deliberately so. Pick one definition and stick to it, please.

    … the other one is just the one that the parent is playing house with.

    You just denigrated a loving, long term commitment by reducing it to the level of a child playing with a doll’s house. Fuck you. You genuinely disgust me. I’m not joking here; this is not hyperbole. I genuinely find you so disgusting that simply communicating with you via the internet makes me feel like I need a wash.

    Even if I gave you that they have two mother or two fathers, that’s still only more of the same that the one homosexual parent provides, so there still aren’t any “parents”, plural.

    More gender essentialist bullshit. You are wrong, and we’ve explained why. Go back and re-read the thread if you need to, but for fuck sake stop ignoring information you’ve already been presented with you disingenuous shite.

    Umm…seeing as though you seem to like putting your weiner in that stuff, I feel sexually harassed by that comment.

    How old are you again? In a debate about homosexual adoption, you whip out “you fuck poo” as an insult? Seriously? Have I been arguing with someone who spends their lunch time playing “tag” this whole time?

  19. 519
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    Again, allow me to emphasise this part AGAIN since you guys keep insisting about the reliability of the studies that support gay parenting and the apparent positive welfare of kids raised by them:

    Repeating refuted bullshit doesn’t make it more true. The overwhelming evidence published by true, not presuppositional, investigators show no damage by homosexual parents. What part of that your bigoted mind can’t grasp? Right, there is no way in your diseased mind that homosexual can make good parents. NOTHING BUT BULLSHIT.

  20. 520
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    No actually the normal family has always been the same until homosexuals came along trying to infest society with the belief that their way is normal too.

    A “normal” family used to consist of one man and as many women as he could financially support, so this is transparent bullshit.

    Yeah because if it’s good enough for animals then it’s good enough for children too, right??

    The absolute irony of annejones slapping down the Appeal to Nature fallacy is just hilarious.

    I don’t hate anyone. If I dislike a homosexual it’s because that homosexual is an a-hole. I do however, plead guilty to hating homosexuality because of it’s effects on society.

    You’re an idiot.

    They also have a right to some semblance of normalcy and decency, some semblance of moral upbringing.

    Because all homosexuals are immoral right? Again, you disgust me.

  21. 521
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    #520 is directed at annejones, obviously.

  22. 522
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    @annejones #516

    Really?? 26 out of this group of 59 studies supporting homosexual parenting had “no heterosexual comparison groups”??

    You’re aware that means that 33 of them did, right?

    Maths is hard, huh?

    Side note:

    Sorry for the repeat posts people. I keep reading more of the thread, seeing more bullshit, and my SIWOTI syndrome kicks in.

  23. 523
    Walton

    Caine, to Nightjar,

    As I said, I’m pretty sure Walton could help you get in touch, or relay a message for you.

    Yes, I can do so if you wish.

  24. 524
    Rey Fox

    Thought I’d take another linguistic tangent over here from the “not an update” thread.

    I know “bastard” isn’t quite kosher around these parts

    It seems to me like “bastard” is pretty well divorced from the meaning of “child out of wedlock” these days, but I don’t know nothin’.

  25. 525
    Rey Fox

    Because having to spend your entire life playing make believe that 2 men or 2 women can be your parents is the same thing as being denied a cookie.

    Unless kids are fed all the arbitrary gender essentialist rules that you go on and on about (but never actually define), then yes, they’re going to be more distressed about the cookie. Way more.

    No actually the normal family has always been the same until homosexuals came along trying to infest society with the belief that their way is normal too.

    I’ll add anthropology to the long list of subjects you know nothing about.

    You think they don’t realize that they’re usually the only one in their class that claims to have 2 mommies or 2 daddies?? Eventually they catch on and see that it isn’t normal.

    When I was in the upper part of grade school, I started realizing I was one of the only kids in the class whose parents had never been divorced. I was not normal, and it hurt me a lot. Wait, no it didn’t.

    I’m aware that you’re going to whine about the divorce rate now, but really if “normal” is what’s important, then it shouldn’t matter what the “normal” actually is, should it?

    Yeah because if it’s good enough for animals then it’s good enough for children too, right??

    It’s Natural. You like Natural, don’t you? Well, there are more things in nature than dreamt of in your philosophy.

    (Because your philosophy sucks)

    I don’t even feel like getting into this one.

    Intellectual honesty is hard, I know.

  26. 526
    piegasm

    Seems closer than “flounce” to components of women’s clothing but I also think it’s divorced enough from “child out of wedlock” to be OK, for whatever my opinion is worth. Having said that, for me, it’s one of those words where there are enough other ways to express the same sentiment that I wouldn’t quibble over giving it up if people have a problem with it.

  27. 527
    Rey Fox

    Please explain your asinine, stupid, moronic, idiotic theory on how additional reproductive methods can possibly result in man “destroying himself”.

    If it’s anything like her “theory” on mother and father roles, then I can see why she’d be embarrassed to actually put forth the effort to write it out.

  28. 528
    omnicrom

    Really?? 26 out of this group of 59 studies supporting homosexual parenting had “no heterosexual comparison groups”?? Single mothers are being used as a hetero comparison group?? And this is your APA supporting these studies and their outcomes.

    Yes actually, this is the APA supporting our findings. It means that 33 of the 59 studies had heterosexual comparisons and found no harm. Additionally all those studies comparing single parents to gay couples they found the couple was superior to the single mother, which incidentally is actually more reinforcement. The fact that a couple is a better parenting unit than a single mother demonstrates that couples be they homosexual or heterosexual are better than a single parent. Additionally there are many things that can be studies without a comparison sample because you can compare factors to the general population. You can see if any confusions develop from a child of gay couples, you can test their school learning skills, you can see how they do socially or emotionally.

    The APA has found that Children of Homosexual couples do no worse than children of heterosexual couples, and in some cases actually do better (when compared to single parents). Once again you shoot yourself in the foot Annejones. You appealed to research in an attempt to show us up by facing us on our own terms, but it turns out that the research is against you.

    I doubt this will dissuade you Annejones as you aren’t arguing in good faith. In fact I dare say you won’t read my post at all, you have completely ignored every other post I made in this thread as a response to you. I see no reason to end your unvarnished streak of awfulness. Your most recent failure proves once again you aren’t motivated by the children but by hatred. Your religion tells you to hate gays and you annejones are nothing if no pliable.

  29. 529
    bargearse

    rey fox

    I pretty much agree with you but it’s come up before and the consensus was it’s a no go. Just wanted to be clear i wasn’t trying to start anything, just quoting something that stuck with me.

  30. 530
    Portia

    I can definitely see purging “bastard” on the basis that it is generally based in insulting one’s unwed mother. Or rather, it used to be, and now it’s more just an insult. The origins are definitely sexist, obviously. I recently learned that “son of a gun” is similarly sexist.

  31. 531
    michaeld

    @524 Only because it was brought up…
    As a child born out of wedlock dating a woman with a child born out of wedlock I’d frankly prefer that people didn’t. It also seems little different to the kind of your mother is a slut kind of insult. But there are other issues I’d rather argue about or hold people to and as these days I find my energies for these issues rather taxed… I’m not going to do much if people insist on using it but let it be known I’d rather it wasn’t.

  32. 532
    Portia

    Hey, I have no problem not using it.

    My grandmother used to call people horse’s asses, so I default to that a lot.

  33. 533
    Rey Fox

    The fact that a couple is a better parenting unit than a single mother demonstrates that couples be they homosexual or heterosexual are better than a single parent.

    And keep in mind, single parent is one of those contingent “if you absolutely have to” situations that Jones is grudgingly okay with (only if the father is a rapist, I suppose). Single parenting, adoption, extended families, all suboptimal solutions, it’s only pairings of non-opposite sex people that she draws the line at. And I suspect it all comes back to the manure remark. (but what of lesbians, we all wonder?)

  34. 534
    The Mellow Monkey: Non-Hypothetical

    Re: bastard

    My siblings and I were all “born out of wedlock”, as were all my nieces and nephews and the majority of my second cousins. I’m not really a fan of insults based on one’s mother. It’s not something I spend a lot of energy on, but it does make me wince. I recognize most people aren’t thinking about what the word really means, but it’s still reinforcing the idea that some people are superior by virtue of their birth circumstances.

    And because there are a lot of stereotypes linking unwed mothers with certain ethnic groups, a lower socioeconomic status and undesirable behavior, there are other nasty bigotries it reinforces. Hell, even here I’m a bit cautious about talking about my birth circumstances because I know the subconscious links that are made in people’s heads.

  35. 535
    mildlymagnificent

    I know USAnian feelings on bastard are a bit tender. In Australia it really is one of those harmless coarse expressions we use between friends “Owya goin’, ya old bastard” is perfectly OK.

    But this is international not Australian, so it’s up to you guys.

  36. 536
    Ingdigo Jump

    “Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.”

    Isn’t this basically the philosophy of Kimblee from Full Metal Alchemist?

    For those of you who don’t know the character is a war criminal

  37. 537
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Michaeld:
    I can easily not use the word.
    Would that other problems were easier to solve.

  38. 538
    Ingdigo Jump

    Look while I’m all for not using splash damage to offend people and all can we not go looking to manufacture offense for the purpose of purifying our language?

  39. 539
    Portia

    Look while I’m all for not using splash damage to offend people[1] and all can we not go looking to manufacture offense for the purpose of purifying our language[2]?

    1 and 2 do not comport with one another. Either you want to avoid offending people based on their membership in a marginalized group or you think such offense is “manufactured” and should be ignored.

  40. 540
    Ingdigo Jump

    @Portia

    Yes it does. There’s a difference between acknowledging people’s feelings and going through the dictionary checking each word for bad origins. Are we going to drop vandal now?

  41. 541
    Portia

    I don’t think pre-checking is necessary*, but rather listening and considering thoughtfully when someone makes an objection. What’s wrong with vandal?

    *And I haven’t heard anyone advocating it, which means your point sounds like a strawman.

  42. 542
    Ingdigo Jump

    Vandal is referencing an actual ethnic group iirc

  43. 543
    The Mellow Monkey: Non-Hypothetical

    Look, other people can singsong chant “bastard” all the livelong day here if it makes them happy. I’ve never really been one to fight for purifying other people’s language. I am also not manufacturing the fact that “bastard” is an insulting term that’s used to describe me and denigrate my mother.

    My life isn’t something I made up. I brought it up to point out that, at least for some people that the term references, it’s not so divorced from its origins as you might think. There can be some kind of middle ground between “this term never hurts anyone and doesn’t actually refer to real people” and “NEVER BREATHE THAT WORD AGAIN.”

  44. 544
    Portia

    Ah, should have googled before I asked. I don’t have an answer to that, but I think that it’s pretty far outside the realm of what we’re talking about. Most people know the literal definition of words like “bastard”. It’s not that far removed from its original meaning. At least not in the U.S. No one has objected to “vandal” but real people have really said that they are in real life hurt by the use of “bastard.” You’re making a slippery slope fallacy, and it’s also a bit of a red herring. (Boy, freshman Logic 101 is really coming back to me right now). No one is saying we need to evaluate every word’s etymology and history. The point is that it’s just the decent thing to do to listen to people who say that something is hurtful. Especially when the cost of getting rid of “bastard” and many other words is so low.

  45. 545
    Portia

    See, Mellow Monkey isn’t even saying “Never say that.” Much less “Research every syllable you ever utter.”

  46. 546
    Ingdigo Jump

    My life isn’t something I made up. I brought it up to point out that, at least for some people that the term references, it’s not so divorced from its origins as you might think. There can be some kind of middle ground between “this term never hurts anyone and doesn’t actually refer to real people” and “NEVER BREATHE THAT WORD AGAIN.”

    Fair enough, sorry if I offended

  47. 547
    Ingdigo Jump

    I’ll reconsider use here as requested.

  48. 548
    Rey Fox

    Fortunately, Douglas Adams had this covered years ago.

    Vandal is referencing an actual ethnic group iirc

    Ba dada DA dada DAAAAH

  49. 549
    WharGarbl

    So… we should change the word “vandalism”?

  50. 550
    Amphiox

    No comparison study had the statistical power required to detect a small effect size.

    That means that the null hypothesis that there is NO difference is not rejected.

    Which is our point, annejones.

  51. 551
    anteprepro

    That means that the null hypothesis that there is NO difference is not rejected.

    Which is our point, annejones.

    Thank you, you just kickstarted my brain by reminding me of my objection to her nonsense. What you just said is also, I believe, the entire point of the APA’s statement regarding those studies. It wasn’t that they had somehow, magically, proven that gay parents were just as good as straight parents, since statistics don’t work that way (at least not the kind of statistics I learned as a psych undergrad and that are used in psych research). The APA’s statement was that there was no evidence that gay parents were worse . And annejones whining about lack of comparison groups or whatever completely elides that fact. Which is a surprise, I’m sure, to absolutely no-one.

  52. 552
    Avo, also nigelTheBold

    That means that the null hypothesis that there is NO difference is not rejected.

    Which is our point, annejones.

    I guess my point is, being hetero doesn’t make you a better parent. Period. Hetero couples don’t automatically know how to take care of a baby. There’s no innate childcare knowledge that comes with mixing penises and vaginas.

    In fact, I’d say that same-sex couples are more likely to be better parents. Here’s my reasoning: hetero couples have kids all willy-nilly. They often have kids with complete disregard to their economic ability to take care of a kid, or even their desire (or lack thereof) to even have a kid. Same-sex couples, on the other hand, generally have to plan for their child. They’re more likely to consider their ability to afford to raise a child. They’re more likely to want the child in their lives in the first place. Ergo, they are more likely to love and care for the child.

    All this denial by annejones is really quite humorous. These days I’m more and more amused watching people publicly attempt to rationalize their bigotry, especially in the face of the inevitable embrace of GLBT folks by the rest of society. The more they willfully disregard facts in defense of their ignorance, the funnier they get.

  53. 553
    Amphiox

    No comparison study had the statistical power required to detect a small effect size.

    “Statistical power” is also a fancy word for “numbers of subjects”. Lack of statistical power means not enough subjects in the study to determine if observed differences are real or just a random fluctuation due to chance.

    For example, if you have a quantified result for group A that is 4.01 and a result for group B that is 4.02, does that mean that B is 0.01 better than A, or are they actually identical, but just happened to get an average for B that is a little bit higher in that particular experiment because of randomness. So you look at how many subjects you had in groups A and B, and you can calculate if that number was large enough to differentiate whether or a difference of 0.01 is real or random. If the numbers are big enough then you have disproved your null hypothesis that A and B are the same, and have shown that B is 0.01 better than A. If the numbers are not big enough then you have not disproved the null hypothesis that A and B are the same. This would be a retrospective study.

    Conversely, in a prospective study, you start when planning your experiment by deciding what difference between A and B you would consider to be practically or clinically significant. For example, if you are trying to determine what height makes for a good basketball player, you first must decide whether or not a difference of 1.0cm really matters or not. Once you have determined that clinically significant difference, you calculate how many subjects you must measure BEFORE you do the experiment to find such a difference IF it exists. Then you go and recruit the number of subjects you need. Then, after all is said and done, if you observe a difference of that size or larger, you know you had enough subjects to show that said difference is likely real. You can thus reject your null hypothesis.

    If you observe a smaller difference, it may or may not be real, but it doesn’t matter, because a difference that small has no practical real world significance on the performance index that you care about.

    So how big were those studies on same-sex couples raising children? Since they found no difference, what it means by saying they did not have statistical power in those studies for small differences, is that the differences are so small that you need to look at even more examples before they are even noticeable.

    In other words, annejones as trying to quibble over differences that would one out of millions and millions of families, even if they did exist.

  54. 554
    Rey Fox

    Tangent: I was thinking in the shower today about how one of the typical rebuttals to people crying about the “redefinition” of “traditional marriage” is the ubiquity of arranged marriage in the past. I now wonder if there’s actually an unconscious desire in the hard Christian right to return to those days, particularly with all the traditional gender roles that they love, and how the woman is essentially reduced to property in these social engineering systems. Once you let in the idea that marriage should purely be about love, then it’s inevitable that the whole social engineering edifice will collapse. It ain’t the gays that are destroying marriage, it’s love.

  55. 555
    opposablethumbs

    It ain’t the gays that are destroying marriage, it’s love.

    Rather beautifully put, Rey Fox.

  56. 556
    Goodbye Enemy Janine

    I have no idea what is wrong with me. A couple of years ago, I would have been all over annejones’ “not at all super-duper mean to homosexuals” ass like I was with Barb.

  57. 557
    Inaji

    About the Epic Grenade thread, I wanted to let people who saw b0nezbrigade’s criticisms in that thread (and briefly here in the Angry Dome) to know that they showed up at my blog Needled, and proffered a generous apology. At that point in the thread, it was a bad, twitchy time for all of us, including b0nezbrigade, and I am sorry they ended up banned, due to carrying on without refreshing the thread. Anyway, I just wanted to say I think it was just a case of a good person having a really shit day.

  58. 558
    Dalillama, Schmott Guy

    I recently learned that “son of a gun” is similarly sexist.

    Huh. It honestly never occurred to me that anyone would suppose the phrase to be anything other than a euphemistic for of “Son of a bitch,” a la “Jeepers Creepers” (Jesus Christ), although I could also see the assumption that it might have derived from the practice of shotgun weddings. The entire foofarah about being born on gundecks has a strong feel of folk etymology to me.

  59. 559
    Portia

    Dalillama:

    I actually learned about it reading a book about the Barbary War(s?). Before that, I though it was just a Cleaver way to say sonovabitch, too.

  60. 560
    anteprepro

    It ain’t the gays that are destroying marriage, it’s love.

    Truth.

  61. 561
    Ingdigo Jump

    Huh. It honestly never occurred to me that anyone would suppose the phrase to be anything other than a euphemistic for of “Son of a bitch,” a la “Jeepers Creepers” (Jesus Christ), although I could also see the assumption that it might have derived from the practice of shotgun weddings. The entire foofarah about being born on gundecks has a strong feel of folk etymology to me.

    IIRC my folk history on it, it actually means son of a whore referecning sailors on shore leave taking women to a secluded place, say under the guns of their ship for a trist. Thus son of a gun.

  62. 562
    Dalillama, Schmott Guy

    Portia, Ing
    Like I said, it smacks of folk etymology. Those kinds of stories pop up about all kinds of words (I’ve had people claim that fuck is an acronym for Fornication Under Consent of the King, or some silly-ass story about longbowmen saying ‘Pluck Yew” in battle, frex). Because of this, I am prone to using a kind of linguistic Ockham’s Razor, whereby the etymology that requires the fewest undocumented cultural elements is most likely to be correct.

  63. 563
    Nightjar

    Walton,

    Yes, I can do so if you wish.

    Thank you, Walton. Like I said to Caine, I’m torn, but right now I’m more inclined to go with the part of me saying “not worth bothering her with this now”. I’ll let you know if I change my mind and I appreciate the offer, though.

  64. 564
    Nightjar

    I am amused, but not surprised, that annejones’ “decades of research! DECADES!!!!” turn out to be… the Regnerus study and Loren Marks’ paper. You know, those two papers, published at the same time, in the same issue of the same journal. Those two discredited papers.

    Two dubious papers published simultaneously = decades of research. Not.

  65. 565
    Nightjar

    annejonnes,

    It feminizes the men

    You fucking doucheweasel. Doing (or helping with) the housework and child-rearing while his partner is working does not make a man feminine, it makes him a good husband/boyfriend and a good father. And in any case, there is nothing wrong with feminine men.

    “feminizes the men”… that’s not a bad thing, you know. It’s also not a good thing. It’s a neutral thing.

    You mean that people aren’t interested in their genealogies?? No one seeks to learn their ancestry, where they came from, the kind of people their ancestors were?? No one seeks out their biological relatives when they get older??

    And this is relevant to gay couples adopting kids how, exactly?

    but the fact that they support gay rights means that they have taken a side, thus have abandoned their position as a neutral, unbiased source of information.

    That’s rich coming from someone about to cite fucking Mark Regnerus and fucking Loren Marks.

    If you say that the mother role is more expendable [...]

    If you say that the father role is more expendable [...]

    You could say that either role could be expendable, as long as the other one is left. Two males or two females can raise a child, since there is still either mother roles or father roles present, but that means admitting that mothers and fathers are equally important. [...]

    I can’t think of any other options

    That’s because you’re a fool. Try this: instead of “mothers and fathers are equally important”, try “mothers and fathers are equivalent“. Two loving adults caring for a child. Gender and sex are not important.

    BTW, have you figured out yet if genderqueer people that do not identify as either man or woman can be parents? Or if you are okay with a masculine transgender man and a feminine cis woman raising a child together?

  66. 566
    Nightjar

    Oh, I almost forgot. annejones, what, exactly, did you mean when you said you are not super-duper mean to gay people, unlike others?

  67. 567
    cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming)

    Are we going to drop vandal now?

    Feh. What about Goth?! ;-)

  68. 568
    chigau (違う)

    Good question.
    What about that super-duper mean stuff?

  69. 569
    Inaji

    Yes, I would like an explanation of the “not super-duper mean to those homosexuals” stuff. C’mon, annejones. You certainly aren’t shy about taking one public shit after another, so let’s hear it.

  70. 570
    Ingdigo Jump

    Oh, I almost forgot. annejones, what, exactly, did you mean when you said you are not super-duper mean to gay people, unlike others?

    They can use her bathroom. It’s a typo and meant ot read Super-Dumper Mean

  71. 571
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    I would reiterate the question “ANNEJONES, what did you mean by your super duper mean to gays” comment, but she has responded to *nothing* from me. I guess she is frightened of the queer shoop.

  72. 572
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Ooh, howzabout this:
    ANNEJONES, do you approve of the treatment of homosexuals in Russia?

  73. 573
    txpiper

    “Good. Then those who fight for….liberal and progressive causes.”

    You left out racism and climate change, but it actually sounds like you’re not at all pleased with how things have evolved. But with inspiring victories like Detroit, I can’t blame you for hanging in there. Carry on.

    ===

    ”txpiper, do you accept the scientific facts that the age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and that the age of the universe is about 13.8 billion years old?”

    No, I do not accept those ages as scientific facts.

    ===

    ” his “program” is just to sit and watch the status quo being the status quo.”

    It just means that, for the time being, you needn’t expect much in the way of intervention or interference with human behavior.

  74. 574
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    GET YER PAPER RIGHT HERE!
    READ ALL ABOUT IT!
    FRONT PAGE NEWS!

    Cephalopodean Times 8/15/2013 page 1A
    $.25

    “Txpiper Denies Reality”
    In shocking news, txpiper does not believe scientific evidence. Shock, dismay, and chaos in the streets ensue.

  75. 575
    Dalillama, Schmott Guy

    cm’s changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming)
    I can’t be arsed with following the link you dumped over in the economics thread, largely because the portion you quoted was a)not terribly coherent, and b) in no remote way relevant to anything that was discussed in any of my posts in that thread, nor to Setar’s post which you quoted. Optimalcynic believed that I was describing Marx’s Labor Theory of Value. I was not referring to that theory, a fact which both Setar and I pointed out. Please clarify what you believe your point to have been.

  76. 576
    chigau (違う)

    txpiper’s heart is no longer in this.
    I guess annejones wins the troll-off.

    annejones behold the tattered remains of txpiper.
    This is your future.

  77. 577
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Chigau:
    Umm, there is still one other megaracist nuisance in the Dome. He should pop back up soon.

  78. 578
    anteprepro

    . But with inspiring victories like Detroit,

    Still going on about Detroit? Impervious to facts on every fucking subject, huh.

    No, I do not accept those ages as scientific facts.

    Apparently what is and what is not science is entirely a matter of txpiper’s opinion. Txpiper doesn’t reject science, of course! Txpiper simply claims, with authority unknown, that certain things are not actually Science, and that therefore those facts aren’t scientific facts and can be dismissed. Because reasons.

    ” his “program” is just to sit and watch the status quo being the status quo.”

    It just means that, for the time being, you needn’t expect much in the way of intervention or interference with human behavior.

    Which is different from “just to sit and watch the status quo being the status quo” how ? Congratulations on bringing no new information to the table or providing anything that would show that I misunderstood you or was wrong. You have real talent, pip.

  79. 579
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    No, I do not accept those ages as scientific facts.

    Yet you present no SCIENTIFIC facts to refute those numbers. Put up or shut the fuck up, like a loser, liar, and bullshitter like you should do in the presence of those who know things. Since you obviously don’t, believing in your imaginary deity and mythical/fictional holy book….

  80. 580
    Inaji

    Perhaps if it’s emphasized a bit more. *Ahem*

    Hey! annejones! Please explain, in detail, what you meant when you said you, unlike other people, were not super-duper mean to gay people.

    1. Please provide, in detail, your definition of being super-duper mean.

    2. Then explain, in detail, why the horrible, immoral hate you spew does not qualify as super-duper mean.

    3. Please explain what you mean by gay people. Does that refer to men only, or do you simply use that as a default for all GLBT people, being that you are a lazy ignoramus?

    Three simple questions. Let’s go for three clear, concise answers, annejones.

  81. 581
    txpiper

    “Still going on about Detroit? Impervious to facts….”

    Yeah, because we’re on a path to turn a fabulous, progressive municipal success story into a national one. And because thunderdome resembles it.

    What facts do you have in mind? This was a city saturated with all policies wonderful for decades, E PUR SI went broke. Who do you blame?

  82. 582
    Inaji

    txpip, you have been utterly outgunned on every one of your strong points: bigotry, hate, idiocy and godtalk. I’m afraid annejones has taken the prize for bestest bigot, hater, idiot and godtalker stupidity.

    Time for you to find fresh pastures in which to shit. One of you at a time is enough.

  83. 583
    anteprepro

    What facts do you have in mind?

    We’ve already discussed it and you paid no heed! The facts could be readily obtained with a simple skim of wikipedia! Your brain is a brick wall. I don’t know why I even strain myself to fret about it when it is obvious that it is obvious that you don’t even care. You don’t care about much of anything. If you only just took your apathy and egocentrism one logical step further, retreating into your own little solipsistic world and finally leaving us the fuck alone.

  84. 584
    Amphiox

    This was a city saturated with all policies wonderful for decades, E PUR SI went broke.

    You keep dreaming your sappy little dream that Detroit or any other US jurisdiction has ever had anything remotely close to truly liberal progressive policies about anything in your sappy little echo-chamber soap bubble, texpip.

    The more you and your ilk do so, the sooner the tides of the reality that you so desperately deny will sweep your sad, pitiful, failed, ineffective, useless political ideology into the dustbin of history, and the sooner we will finally see real liberal progressive policies enacted in America for the very first time.

    Please proceed, texpip.

  85. 585
    Amphiox

    Your brain is a brick wall.

    Hey, do not disparage the noble brick by comparing it to the useless filth that festers within the texpip’s cranium (present only because nature abhors a vacuum).

    One can build very sophisticated astronomical calculators with nothing but stone and brick. The computational potential of brick walls far exceeds anything the texpip is even remotely capable of.

  86. 586
    Amphiox

    It just means that, for the time being, you needn’t expect much in the way of intervention or interference with human behavior.

    Poor little texpip’s poor little god has lost his smite-hammer. Poor little biddy tuckered himself all out after Babel and Gomorrah.

    Or, in playground vernacular,

    Excuses are for losers, texpip. Losers like you and your god.

  87. 587
    Amphiox

    You left out racism and climate change,

    Racism is so obvious that only an imbecile could read that post and need to have it explicitly pointed out. Congratulations for revealing yourself as imbecile number one.

    Climate change is not a liberal or progressive cause. It is not even political. It is a cause for INTELLIGENT human beings who are interested in self-preservation.

    But we all know that you do not qualify for being numbered in that category, texpip.

  88. 588
    Amphiox

    Of course all rational people know that the biggest causes of Detroit’s problems was the auto sector meltdown that was part of the larger economic collapse that was entirely precipitated by the Bush administrations right wing financial policies, in addition to being screwed over again and again by the right wing financial policies of the current republican state administration.

    The texpip can deny and dissemble to his dishonest heart’s content, but he cannot weasel out of the reality that it his precious right wing/libertarian/free market ideologies that OWN the Detroit fiasco, all the way.

  89. 589
    txpiper

    “We’ve already discussed it…”

    A common refrain. But you really didn’t. You just want to move on. What you didn’t discuss is why normal entities abandoned one of the many feral toilets that liberals have built with someone else’s money, or with money that nobody has. Liberals help people by sequestering them in government-financed pits, and paying them to adopt dog morals.

    Carry on. You’re doing a hell of a job.

  90. 590
    anteprepro

    A common refrain. But you really didn’t.

    Is there any reality you won’t deny?

  91. 591
    Amphiox

    The coward texpip continues to evade the question, like the poor, weak projectionist he is.

  92. 592
    Amphiox

    It is of course the classic conservative/libertarian strategy that when they screw up in epic, but completely predictable fashion, to pretend that it is somehow not their own fault, but the fault of liberals.

    So it is with texpip, and so it is with Detroit.

    Detroit was managing alright so long as centrist and slightly right of centre policies were running the show (there has never been any jurisdiction in the United States that has ever been further left than slightly right of centre), but the moment a we got a “conservative” (the term being a misnomer since these people don’t care about, nor are able to, conserve anything of worth) federal government, followed by a conservative state government interfering with the local ones (yet more conservative hypocrisy on full display here), it all comes apart.

    Just another example of how yet another facet of the texpip’s sappy worldview is worse than useless.

  93. 593
    Dalillama, Schmott Guy

    Amphiox
    I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that the most recent Bush administration can’t really shoulder all the blame here; the previous Bush and the guy before him were the ones who really got the ball rolling.

  94. 594
    Amphiox

    I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that the most recent Bush administration can’t really shoulder all the blame here; the previous Bush and the guy before him were the ones who really got the ball rolling.

    Sure. That why I said “biggest” not “only”.

  95. 595
    Amphiox

    the many feral toilets

    The poor, poor texpip can’t even manage to get his insults right.

    Not using toilets is part of the operational definition of “feral”. So, no such thing as “feral” toilets.

    Yet another vivid example of the fruits of the texpip’s sappy, useless worldview.

    Rots the morals. Dissolves the brain.

  96. 596
    Jadehawk

    Please clarify what you believe your point to have been.

    I suspect cm thought that Setar’s comment (“he principle that CEOs and other execs shouldn’t make exorbitant amounts while paying their workers pittances”) was meant as an explanation of the Labor Theory of Value, when actually it was supposed to be an explanation of your comment’s underlying principle.
    Not that I think that quote explains the LToV any better, either, since the LToV isn’t actually contradicted by prices of a widget being below the actual labor-value of a widget, since value and price are two completely different things according to the LToV; and I suspect that prices way below value would simply end up classified as theft

  97. 597
    Owlmirror

    “txpiper, do you accept the scientific facts that the age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and that the age of the universe is about 13.8 billion years old?”
    No, I do not accept those ages as scientific facts.

    OK, you disbelieve in facts.

    Can we try and figure out the prior beliefs or disbeliefs that lead to these current disbeliefs? For example, if you disbelieved in the Titanic disaster, it might be because you disbelieved in icebergs, or passenger ships, or because you imagined that everything known about the Titanic is nothing more than a conspiracy of historians and oceanographers, presumably using props put together by a team of special effects artists.

    The age of the Earth follows from radiometric dating of uranium isotopes and their decay products (and of other isotopes/decay products, but let’s keep things simple). Do you deny the existence of uranium, or of isotopes, or of radioactive decay? Do you imagine that spectroscopy and radiation detectors are figments of physicists’ minds? Do you imagine that the atomic bombs tested in and deployed by the US were just conventional explosives that were magically scaled up? Do you imagine that fission plants all secretly have coal furnaces that make them go?

    Maybe it’s even deeper than that.

    Do you deny the existence of atoms? Do you imagine that chemicals are magical irreducible essences?

    The age of the universe follows from an analysis of the cosmic background radiation.

    Do you deny the existence of this radiation? Do you imagine that the radiation signature has not been properly analyzed? Do you imagine that the speed of light is not what has been measured?

  98. 598
    Owlmirror

    Will txpiper answer a single one of the questions? Who knows?

    Back to annejones:

    I’m starting to think you’re heterophobic.

    I’m starting to think you have a problem reading for comprehension.

    You do realize that not all biological parents are rapists, abusers, neglectful, or deadbeats, right??

    I am not saying they are.

    You are saying that biological parentage is so important that depriving children of their biological parent is a terrible, horrible violation of their rights — but if you acknowledge that not all biological parents are of the same quality, and that poor-quality parents should not have access to their children, then obviously quality parentage is more important than biological parentage.

    Is that clear, or do I need to make it even simpler for you to understand?

    Because having to spend your entire life playing make believe that 2 men or 2 women can be your parents is the same thing as being denied a cookie.

    Since it is a fact that two men or two women can indeed be your de facto parents, no “playing make believe” is necessary (and presumably those parents will allocate cookies responsibly).

    what a “normal” family is depends on time and culture.

    No actually the normal family has always been the same

    Nonsense. Now you’re just denying reality.

    until homosexuals came along trying to infest society with the belief that their way is normal too.

    Your bigotry is noted.

    And children usually see their own family as what is “normal” anyway.

    You think they don’t realize that they’re usually the only one in their class that claims to have 2 mommies or 2 daddies?

    They won’t be the only ones once society loses your bigotry. And, really, every family is potentially unique in some way.

    But religious people do try to force their children to believe the same nonsense that the parents believe! That’s what indoctrination is!

    All parents impart into their children what they want them to believe.

    Some parents want their kids to believe in reality, not superstitious nonsense.

    As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

    Right; you’ll indoctrinate them with your nonsense and bigotry.

    If and when you have kids, you’ll have to make choices on how to guide them just like all other parents before you have had to make. That’s not indoctrination, it’s parental guidance and it’s a necessary part of parenting.

    I’m sure that every parent that ever indoctrinated their kids told themselves the same self-serving excuses. Really, what do you think indoctrination even means? And what makes you think that Christians aren’t magically doing exactly that when they bring their children up to “serve the Lord”?

    Silly ignorant bigot. Homosexual parenting, like single parenting, exists in nature.

    Yeah because if it’s good enough for animals then it’s good enough for children too, right?

    Thanks for the concession.

    Pfft. What blithering nonsense. Children have a right to have loving parents, and since homosexuals can be loving parents, the children have what they have the right to have.

    They also have a right to some semblance of normalcy and decency, some semblance of moral upbringing.

    All of which can be provided by homosexuals as well.

    Yes, if it can be shown that the biological parents are abusing or neglecting the kids then yes they should be taken away.

    OK, you’re back to this now. Maybe you’ve almost got it?

    You’re the one that keeps repeating the strawman even though I’ve repeatedly stated a belief to the contrary. If you were a good debater you wouldn’t need to make up arguments that I’ve never made.

    If you thought it through, you would understand the implications of your position.

    Pfft. You’re not a bigot because reproductive biology exists; you’re a bigot because you hate homosexuals.

    I don’t hate anyone.

    Now you’re just lying.

    If I dislike a homosexual it’s because that homosexual is an a-hole. I do however, plead guilty to hating homosexuality because of it’s effects on society.

    Would you believe someone who protested that they weren’t a racist; they just hated miscegenation because of it’s effects on society?

    Excellent. So God eliminates the potential negatives or risk factors in same-sex parenting, because humans ” including homosexual humans ” are made in the image of God.
    Problem solved!

    You shouldn’t dream while you type.

    I agree that religion is a dream. But if you get to dream, so do I.

    So Isabella Miller should not exist, right?

    Don’t go there.

    You’re the one who said that sperm donation parentage should not happen. You don’t want to go there? Think through the implications of your own position.

    Please explain your asinine, stupid, moronic, idiotic theory on how additional reproductive methods can possibly result in man “destroying himself”.

    I don’t even feel like getting into this one.

    I’ll take that as another concession.

    Why are you using a computer, if you hate technology so much? Why not live like the Amish, or the Bedouin?

    I’m not against technology but I am against playing God.

    Why? I repeat, according to your dream, God is morally perfect. So playing God — especially with regards to the continuation of life — should be laudable.

    Seriously, why do we need to be able to make humans through that method?? What purpose does that serve??

    The same purpose as heterosexual reproduction.

    Many on the left scream about over population, yet they’re still pursuing even more ways to create life, cloning, etc. I realize the possibility that other discoveries could come from that research that would be beneficial, but if that technology works what value would it provide?

    The point is that “overpopulation” results from there being unwanted children; more children than can be sustained with current resources. No-one “on the left” wants to end heterosexual reproduction entirely!

    With the procedures being investigated, the whole point of going the extra length of turning a cell into the opposite-sex gamete implies, very much, that the resulting child would indeed be very much wanted, and with parents who are wealthy enough and confident enough in their prospects to conceive in that manner.

    (Kinda like Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins, when Isabella was conceived)

  99. 599
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    @txpiper

    ”txpiper, do you accept the scientific facts that the age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and that the age of the universe is about 13.8 billion years old?”

    No, I do not accept those ages as scientific facts.

    Why not?

  100. 600
    Pteryxx

    Follow-up on Dave Silverman’s tweet “liking” the Mr Deity video, from a comment over at Ophelia’s:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2013/08/transcript-of-mr-deitys-advice-on-gossip-and-wine-consumption/#comment-611662

    I used the American Atheists Contact Us form to complain and got this response a few minutes later:
    Kelly,

    Thank you for your message. Our president happens to be on vacation this week and is out of the office, but I’m SURE he didn’t watch the video past the credits before tweeting that—I didn’t do so myself until someone pointed it out to me. I have never known him to victim-blame or perpetuate rape culture in any way, shape, or form. In fact one of the reasons I wanted to work for American Atheists in the first place (I started here about six months ago) is that American Atheists was the first of all the atheist orgs to enact a harassment policy at their conventions and events following Rebecca Watson’s talk about her experience on the elevator at the conference in Ireland three years ago. Every single one of us on staff identifies as a feminist and although I can’t speak for him directly, I’m certain it wasn’t intentional. Thank you again for telling us about your concerns.

    Sincerely,
    Dave Muscato

    Will x-post to the Lounge.

  101. 601
    LykeX

    Maybe we should send a copy of that to DJ Grothe and Ron Lindsay. They need to see how it’s done.

  102. 602
    Avo, also nigelTheBold

    annejones:

    You think they don’t realize that they’re usually the only one in their class that claims to have 2 mommies or 2 daddies?

    Or that they’re the only ones who are adopted? Or that they are the only ones with a black daddy and a white mommy? Or that they are the only ones who are muslim? Or christian? Or a geek? Or a jock? Or any other million things that make us unique, rather than boring cookie-cutter clones of annejones?

    Seriously. Do you even think about the things you say, and what they mean? You’ve made an assertion (that same-sex couples make bad parents and so they shouldn’t be parents), but every single assertion you make in support of your prime assertion can apply to many other kids as well, kids raised by single moms, single dads, remarried moms and dads, biological moms and dads, and a lot more.

    Also, you don’t give kids any credit. They know what’s going on. They know whether or not their parents love them, whether both their parents are their biological parents or not. (This applies to adopted kids as well, not just same-sex couples or remarried couples.) The kids I know with same-sex parents are happy, well-adjusted, and intelligent. The preponderance of evidence indicates kids raised by same-sex couples are no worse off than kids raised by hetero couples.

    So as far as I can see, the only argument I can’t refute is that you believe the Bible says this to be immoral. The only reason I can’t refute that argument is because the Bible does have some passages (that are often misinterpreted, near as I can tell) concerning the immorality of homosexuality.

    Of course, these passages are almost exclusively in passages that equally prohibit the eating of shellfish.wearing of mixed-fabric clothes, and harvesting the corners of fields. Since you’re statistically not a farmer, the last probably doesn’t apply to you. I’m not sure if a garden would be considered a field, but I’m sure God would understand if you harvested the corners of your garden.

    In any case, I can’t refute it, because that’s how you get your morality: from the oral traditions of a bronze-age nomadic tribe that were finally transcribed once they settled down into a demonstrably-incorrect collection of almost-incoherent and certainly very boring books.

    Me, I get my morality from a simple place: it is wrong to do what can be proven to hurt others, humanity as a collective, or the world as a whole. It’s a simple morality, yes, but one that can be easily codified (though sometimes hard to apply).

    But then, some issues are pretty easy. It’s wrong to interfere in other people’s lives when they are doing the same thing I’m doing — raising a happy and caring family in a loving marriage.

    There isn’t enough love in the world as it is. It’d be terrible of me to reduce it further.

  103. 603
  104. 604
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    @nigelTheBold

    Me, I get my morality from a simple place: it is wrong to do what can be proven to hurt others, humanity as a collective, or the world as a whole. It’s a simple morality, yes, but one that can be easily codified (though sometimes hard to apply).

    But then, some issues are pretty easy. It’s wrong to interfere in other people’s lives when they are doing the same thing I’m doing — raising a happy and caring family in a loving marriage.

    There isn’t enough love in the world as it is. It’d be terrible of me to reduce it further.

    [Emphasis mine]

    Nigel, you are one of the most fucking awesome human beings ever :)

  105. 605
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    @myeck waters

    That genuinely made my eyes water :) beautiful. Thanks for sharing that; little stories like that keep my faith in humanity alive.

  106. 606
    theophontes (恶六六六缓步动物)

    @ Nick Gotts

    while you say you don’t support it, you’re full of excuses for it. Which anyone can see repeated again and again on the original thread.

    I followed one of your linkies to the previous iteration. I don’t know, perhaps you can select a better example:

    [refering to the Muslim Brotherhood's ousting] So good riddance. – theophontes

    Military juntas for democracy! Yeah! – Nick Gotts

    You see how you create a false equivalence between what I actually said and the message that lit up your brain.I also noticed that, to date, the two commentors who had the most criticism for the thugs in the military were youself and I. Shouldn’t you be lambasting others for their “complacency” rather?

    That’s plain dishonest, because you can’t possibly know which side is in the majority.

    I think the Muslim Brotherhood realises all to well they will lose in a new election. (Whereas I cannot possibly know.)

    Nick, you do realise that the MB are a pan-national gang of thugs? Egypt is just another box for them to tick on their agenda. (Your writings make more sense if I can take it that you do not realise this, nor the implications thereof.)

    WTF are you talking about? Here we have a military coup, a brutal crackdown involving at the very least hundreds of deaths, large-scale imprisonment without trial, a state of emergency giving effective total power to the army…

    Do you realise that this is a fair description of the same Muslim Brotherhood’s initiatives in the Sudan? The same gang of thugs, but with the repressive apparatus in hand. (Only, of course, “hundreds of deaths” would be replaced with “hundreds of thousands of deaths” and we would have to add mass displacements, rape, aerial bombardments of civilians and slavery (inter alia) to the list.)

    you’re wittering on about “consensus politics”, and “another manner in which this situation can be conceptualised”

    I would be fascinated to hear what more pragmatic approaches you could suggest – other than what I suggest. Remember that this has been tried and tested in a country that also displayed violent antagonism, mistrust, a large, well armed and overly violent military … and widespread cynicism that it could ever succeed. But it did.

    You can’t even bring yourself to express any disapproval of the killings of yesterday.

    I condemn these killings of innocent people no less than I condemn the ongoing killings in Northern Sudan. They are abhorrent whether conducted by the Egyptian Military or the Muslim Brotherhood.

  107. 607
    Avo, also nigelTheBold

    @myeck waters:

    That was a beautiful, tear-inducing story that pretty much summarized everything I believe in: love, compassion, and all of us taking care of each other since we’re all in this together.

    It almost even restored my faith in humanity. Thank you for posting that.

  108. 608
    Avo, also nigelTheBold

    Thumper:

    Nigel, you are one of the most fucking awesome human beings ever :)

    *blush*

    Thanks. I don’t believe I am, but it’s good to hear nonetheless.

    (Personally, that’s why I love the horde — pretty much everyone is one of the most fucking awesome human beings ever.)

  109. 609
  110. 610
    Inaji

    Pteryxx @ 600, thank you for posting that. It starts my day out on a bright note.

  111. 611
    theophontes (恶六六六缓步动物)

    @ Nick Gotts

    I warned that there would be an increase in attacks on Copts when the fuckwitted Coptic Pope appeared in support of the coup in public.

    There were already attacks on Copts prior. The Copts have been suffering all the more since the Morsi came to power. The Coptic Pope was acting in desperation to protect his persecuted community. Your victim-blaming is noted though.

    The pro-democracy movement surrendered the initiative as soon as it began calling for army intervention.

    They lack the sophistication to have gone through all the alternatives? To “primitive”?

    … you’re a fool, like theophontes.

    Who the cap fits. I will concede that I once made the foolish mistake to go and live in a country run by the Muslim Brotherhood. I got to see their ways of doing up close. One must certainly be a fool to wilfully put oneself through that experience.

  112. 612
    theophontes (恶六六六缓步动物)

    @ txpiper

    FIFY:

    No, I do not accept those ages as scientific facts science!

  113. 613
    cicely

    I freely admit that annejones’ repetitious screeds make my eyes glaze over and lead to an auto-scrolling twitch in my mousing hand, so I could have just missed it—but has she at all dealt with way the non-binariness of human sexuality kicks the living shit out of her idealized parenting model?
    -

    Tangent: I was thinking in the shower today about how one of the typical rebuttals to people crying about the “redefinition” of “traditional marriage” is the ubiquity of arranged marriage in the past. I now wonder if there’s actually an unconscious desire in the hard Christian right to return to those days, particularly with all the traditional gender roles that they love, and how the woman is essentially reduced to property in these social engineering systems. Once you let in the idea that marriage should purely be about love, then it’s inevitable that the whole social engineering edifice will collapse. It ain’t the gays that are destroying marriage, it’s love.

    An interesting question, Rey! Let’s follow this track a bit.
    If marriages are arranged, the woman is property (and interchangeable with other, similarly-valued pieces of property, i.e., other women), and love is acknowledged as not being the point of “marriage”, then extramarital affairs return to virtual non-issue-ness. A return to functional, if extra-legal, but condoned, polygyny? Wife/wives + “concubines”?
    -

    Do you deny the existence of this radiation? Do you imagine that the radiation signature has not been properly analyzed? Do you imagine that the speed of light is not what has been measured?

    Or does txpiper believe that hir god created the universe to appear aged by these methods, as a “test of faith”? I run into that one quite a lot.
    -

  114. 614
    Rutee Katreya

    No actually the normal family has always been the same

    The ‘gift’ that keeps on giving.

    Can we regift Anne Jones?

  115. 615
    Algernon

    Hello Nightjar,

    I’m responding to you here instead of on the other thread because it is OT.

    I’m really not sure what we might have gotten into it about. A lot has happened in my life, and many memories from over a year or two ago are already hazy for me. My blog is down for now, I may start another one some time. I’ve moved, changed jobs, been diagnosed with cancer, and had lots of other excitement. I’ve been spending a lot more time working, writing, and dancing… and I already had a short memory for emotions. Also a year or two ago I was going through kind of a lot, and unbeknownst to me at the time also dealing with the slow process of becoming increasingly unhinged due to thyroid disease (the thyroid is gone now… my life is a lot better without it) which primarily made my reactions to stress exponentially worse.

    So consider yourself forgiven if it means anything to you. You probably don’t owe me an apology, but if you say you do you can consider it accepted.

    And yes, due to the massive upheavals of the past year or so I’ve largely made an effort to make pursuing pleasure as important in my life as anything else, which some times means avoiding things I just don’t feel like dealing with. You have to pick your battles, after all.

  116. 616
    carlie

    Algernon – I’m glad you’re doing things that make you happy. It’s really good to see you post.

  117. 617
    Inaji

    Algernon, it’s seriously great to see you again. I hope the cancer has been beaten and well dealt with, I hope your recovery has gone well, and I’m very happy you are pursuing pleasurable things.

  118. 618
    Owlmirror

    Hi Algernon!

    I am sorry that bad stuff happened to you, and I am glad that the bad stuff is over. And I hope that good stuff happens from now on.

  119. 619
    Rutee Katreya

    I hope you feel better too. And yeah, I can understand prioritizing keeping oneself happy.

  120. 620
    Rutee Katreya

    Also, I’m about 900% sure that the jackassery between ‘science’ and ‘the humanities’ (It’s been so enlightening to learn that they’er all considered science in some other languages) really is the exact same tihng as when my nerd friends who <3'd console RPGs looked down their noses at tabletop RPGers, and Tabletop RPGers looked down their noses at console RPGers, and that was just an outgrowth of other forms of nerdery being assholes to each other, and…

    seriously, fucking stupid and obnoxious bullshit.

  121. 621
    mouthyb, Vagina McTits

    Did anyone else see this: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/16/video-game-writer-leaves-company-after-threats-against-her-children/

    Jennifer Hepler (wrote for Dragon Age) has left Bioware because of gamer threats to her children.

  122. 622
    Nightjar

    Hi, Algernon. (Sorry about the delay, I had to leave shortly after submitting that comment.)

    Thanks for responding. I’ve wondered about you and how you were doing several times over the last years or so, not being around much and not seeing you around when I was, so it’s really good to hear from you again even if it’s not all happy news. I’m especially happy to hear you’ve been pursuing and spending time doing pleasurable things. I may enjoy seeing you around here, but I enjoy even more knowing you are doing whatever makes you happy and is best for your well-being.

    As for the apology, it really is not a big deal which is why I turned down Walton’s offer to help me reach you. I didn’t want to bother you with it. But then I saw you on that thread, so I thought I would let you know about that post I had made here and how I was feeling. Basically, a recent Mr. Deity video made me remember another one from 4 years, as well as an argument we had about it (both posting under different nyms at the time). It’s clear now to me that I was wrong in giving the authors of that video the benefit of the doubt and I was especially wrong in the way I unrelentingly argued with you about it. You were right and I should have realized it even not knowing at the time what I know now. So, yeah, I was feeling a little bad about it but I figured you probably wouldn’t remember (it was long time ago and I knew you had no hard feelings about it) and I didn’t want to cause you any distress over it, especially if you were taking a break from all this.

    So, I guess more than an apology take this as a belated “hey, you were right, my bad”.

    Again, good to see you, thanks for responding, and I’m sorry if you preferred I had just kept this to myself.

  123. 623
    LykeX

    @mouthyb
    *Puts on asshole hat*
    But if women want better female characters in video games, why don’t they just get a job in the industry themselves?

  124. 624
    mouthyb, Vagina McTits

    LykeX: On the internet, no one can see you foaming at the mouth. LOL

  125. 625
    Amphiox

    No actually the normal family has always been the same

    Bwah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah…..

    The “original” “normal” family was an extended household with at least three generations sharing the same roof, before this blasphemous, radical liberal “nuclear” (can you just picture the mushroom clouds?) arrangement infected society and took over in the last century or so, forever harming the children by depriving them of the 24h authority, wisdom, and supervision from grandparents that is just so absolutely essential for normal healthy emotional and cognitive development.

    I mean, just look at the evidence, man! Five generations of children growing up having to deal with the gnawing realization that their homes are just not normal, with only two adults and one generation of elders around, with having to deal with all the trauma of their playmates asking them “how come your grandpa and grandma are living in a different house?”, and what have we reaped?

    Two world wars, and a world full of adults as morally deficient as annejones.

  126. 626
    annejones

    The bible can be interpreted to say almost anything.

    I won’t deny that there are some issues that we face today that may not seem crystal clear to those who don’t know God’s intent, as laid out in the Bible, or refuse to accept it. But there are some things that are indeed crystal clear. Marriage, family, manhood, womanhood, motherhood, fatherhood, homosexuality, and sexual morality, are the issues that we’re discussing here. Those issues are all very clear in Scripture, as they are responsible for our very existence, and our humanity.

    But one thing that is very consistent is that when something is about to happen that he does not approve of, he will stop it from happening.

    No, I strongly disagree with that and the Bible clearly shows that not to be true. There are many things that He does not approve of, but gives man the free will to decide for himself. He does not approve of murder, but He doesn’t stop it. Think about it. If He stopped everything that He disapproves of then why would we even need to make moral decisions. If we were going to make the wrong decision then He would stop us from sinning altogether. Jesus would be unemployed. So you’re very wrong about that fact being consistent.

    He did NOT stop this from happening. Ergo, he must approve.

    Not necessarily. It isn’t a done deal just yet, there may end up being problems that keep it from working out. Or maybe there is some knowledge to be gained through this research that will lead to something hugely beneficial to mankind. I don’t know what the outcome will be, nor do I know His intentions for future technologies, but I do know that He already gave us the only natural means for procreation, and that can’t be improved upon by anything that man does.

    He created this universe, remember? Set in place all the physical laws. Technology can only accomplish what the physical laws of reality allow. Anything those laws DO allow ergo MUST be what the creator intended, because the creator designed those laws. And THIS creator is also supposed to be omniscient, so he would know EXACTLY EVERYTHING that the laws that he designed would allow to happen.

    It’s true that He created the physical laws that we recognize, I agree with that much. However it isn’t true to say that He will approve of everything that we choose to do with our knowledge, as I already addressed above. So where does free will end, and God’s intercession begin?? I don’t have an answer for that, but I do know that His allowing something does not imply acceptance and approval, in all cases.

    If he did not want homosexuals to have children, he would have designed a universe where that was not possible and NO mere human technology would ever be able to make it so. Since he did not, he must approve.

    Again, allowing it doesn’t mean that what we use it for is accepted by God. If He had meant for homosexuals to have children, He would have made them able to have them naturally. Liberal extremists and social engineers would not need to resort to unnatural means, if that were His intent.

    God’s word is crystal clear on homosexuality, it is abomination. A man is to leave his father and mother, and cling to his wife. The two become one, and the earth is populated. That is crystal clear, rock solid throughout the Bible.
    The bold parts make this issue short, sweet, and to the point. Those points are reinforced solidly and consistently throughout Scripture. God’s intent for marriage, family, parents, sex, and our humanity is defined in that one sentence. Anyone who claims any different is totally molesting Scripture.

    The Bible says, among other things, that rapists should be given their victims, if said victim was not betrothed or married. That means, of course, that the rapist will have custody of the victim’s future child and additional children.

    You, above, said that that was an asinine idea. I agree, of course, but you’re basically saying that the God of the Bible is asinine. So you don’t think that the Bible is a good guide to figuring out what God “really” wants, assuming God exists.

    We’re getting off-track in this discussion but to answer your question, yes the Bible is a good guide to figuring out what God wants, especially as it relates to this thread. God’s intent is for sex to be between a married male and female couple. ANY sex outside the bonds of marriage is a sin, whether you force the person or they consent is irrelevant. If you have sex by raping someone you’re still sinning, regardless of how the culture deals with that behavior.

    Of course, another way of figuring out “what God wants” is to look at nature – where we do see all sorts of different ways of raising children, including homosexual couples.

    Or instead of trying to find some way of getting around the natural order, if you’re going to look for God’s approval you need to look in the Bible. It says a man will leave his father and mother. There’s nothing about leaving his 2 mommies or 2 daddies. We’re told to honor our father and mother, there’s nothing about honoring our 2 dads or 2 moms. There are numerous verses telling us about family, parenting, and marriage, and there is no inconsistency among those passages.

    Honestly guys, you’re wasting your time trying to present your interpretation of nature as God’s intent. God’s intent is clear in His word. The fact that you’re trying to steer the argument away from the Bible in order to try and find support for your point is proof positive of God’s intent, and proof that you know that the Bible doesn’t support your position.This is a point that you cannot win.

    Not exactly.

    Billions of individuals of sexually reproducing species today pretty much reproduce by throwing their sperm out in their massive billions, on the off chance that some will meet the egg of the female of the species. The offspring result when sperm and egg meet, and are then dropped by the “female” with no care whatsoever.

    Pollen is plant sperm.

    Right, so once again, it all starts with male/father, female/mother, and the two produce offspring.

    Many species that provide care for their offspring do so with same-sex collectives or couples. Some of those same-sex couples mount each other, and could therefore be described as homosexual.

    Turning to animal behavior to support that homosexuality is natural also brings a few other problems for you.

    Some animals eat the heads off the males after they have bred with them.
    Some animals eat the young of their own species.
    Some animals eat the young of other species.
    Some animals rape others.
    Some animals practice interspecies sex/beastiality.

    This list could continue but you get the point. All of these things that animals do have no societal repercussions, within that species. So if your argument is that since animals do it, it must be ok for humans to do it too, you have some problems.

    Why don’t we do those things?? It’s simple, humans are not animals. We have morals, animals are amoral.

    The point is that what you think of as the “norm” isn’t, and rarely has been.

    What “has been” and what should be are two different things. We tend to do pretty well when people have sex inside the bonds of marriage and raise their own children in a loving home. That is the way it “should be”, and there is nothing that refutes the fact that that is the best way.

    Because you can magically read God’s mind?

    No, because I can see His intentions on this issue in the Bible.

    So you think He WANTS us to have the ability to create life through unnatural means,

    Of course, “creating life through unnatural means” is exactly what God did. If God is morally perfect, then God is to be emulated, so “creating life through unnatural means” is exactly what we should be doing.

    No, it’s called trying to play God. We already have a natural means of reproducing. Why do we need to reproduce in a lab??

    Of course, what’s actually happening is not “unnatural”, since all of biology and biochemistry is natural. And it isn”t life being “created”, since all of the cells involved are already alive. I guess we aren”t so good at emulating God, but in that case, your criticism is meaningless.

    No it isn’t natural. Man has to intercede and invent technology to accomplish that feat. It doesn’t happen naturally so calling it natural is as big a molestation of the word as you can get.

    You mean like most people in the Western world are becoming apathetic about marriage equality, and are slowly but surely passing laws to allow same-sex marriage?

    Yeah, especially activist judges.

    Because you have magical powers of magically knowing the private lives of everyone everywhere?

    No, it’s just common sense. Of course there are exceptions but for the most part most homosexuals have never been married or had kids. Most high schoolers and college age adults have never been married or had kids. Those groups make up the vast majority of your entire voting block.

    It is impossible to know things that are false, so you don’t know such things either.

    I think those things are easily shown to have had negative effects on our society, in a big way. You seem to disagree with me and deny that those policies have had bad side effects. Maybe I’ll do a thread where we venture into Anne’s world and I’ll make the necessary policy changes, explain why they need to be changed, my solution, and you guys can try and refute me on those issues.

    . . . Thereby contradicting your previous assertion.

    Do you not care that you contradict yourself?

    Please quote where I said that they don’t deserve the title of parent. Saying that kids do better in a loving home, being raised by their biological parents who are married, does not translate into me saying that adoptive and step-parents don’t deserve the title of parent. If I did say something that implies that, I assure you that it wasn’t intentional, and I will re-word it when you provide the quote.

  127. 627
    annejones

    The original ancestor of all sexually reproducing species was a single celled organism that had only a single gender.

    Here is a common response I hear given to people on homosexuality related to God’s existence…

    “(Insert name here), before you even think of trying to use the Bible to claim that homosexuality is wrong, you have to demonstrate that ANY God actually exists first…”

    Now apply that requirement to your own claim about the original ancestor. Scientists can’t tell us even what that organism was or how it came about, so your assertion falls on deaf ears and holds no more empirical value than my claim that God exists.

    Single celled organisms with this kind of mating pattern remain the most common of all sexually reproducing organisms on the planet to this day.

    Offspring with same sex parents was the original pattern, is still the most common pattern, and has always been most common pattern. It is the most natural of all natural configurations, at least on this planet.

    If a creator designed the tapestry of life on this planet, then same sex families was the arrangement he favoured the most and made the most of. It is high time we humans started conforming again with the wishes of our maker.

    And yet medic obstinately flouts the creator’s will, manifest in his creation, the Book of Life.

    Repent, annejones! Repent!

    You can save all that evolutionary gobbledygook for your friends, it has no credibility in this thread until you can show what that original ancestor is and how it came about.

    What could be more natural than in vitro fertilization? (Or any other procedure with similar steps)

    The gametes involved are wholly natural, created within wholly natural bodies. The water in which the reaction takes place is wholly natural. The glass of the containers? Wholly natural. The metal of the syringes? Wholly natural. The humans who developed the procedures? Wholly natural. Not cyborgs. The humans who perform the procedures? Wholly natural. The humans who ask for the procedure? Wholly natural. The motivation for having the procedure? What could be more natural than the desire to have children?

    All natural, all the way down.

    Man you guys have this intense need to totally redefine almost everything you lay your mind on. I think we label people like you as social re-constructionists, which are leftist extremists. There really isn’t much difference between you guys and muslim extremists who are hellbent on instituting sharia law throughout the entire world.

    And there we have it.

    Bring all the boys up to believe that the only possible way to be a man is to reject anything they have been taught belongs to a “woman’s sphere” so that they feel their only possible role in life is as a provider and never as a nurturer. So they are automatically excluded from loving relationships with women who have demanding or travelling jobs – nurse, soldier, firefighter, miner – because they’d always feel they were being asked to violate their sense of self by taking on tasks and behaviours they’ve been taught are beneath them. As a bonus, they are destined for a life of sadness and regret if they ever have an accident or an illness, or their industry lays off thousands of workers like them, which leaves them unemployed or unemployable, because their only avenue of personal fulfilment is partly or wholly denied to them.

    What a limited, dismal view of the world this is.

    If you’re Perez Hilton or Alex (Zinnia) Jones maybe.

    Sorry that you’d rather see men walking around with their bo-bo’s hanging out their mini-skirts but hey, it is what it is.

    So you not only want to be Ruler of the Dictionary, you also want to be the Despot of Mathematics.

    Parents, whether biological, adoptive, or step-parents, consist of both a mother and a father figure.

    Fixed that for you.

    It doesn’t need fixed, it was fine the way it was, which is why I re-fixed it. Same sex couples cannot offer any more than a single parent with an extra income, and more time. That’s it, at best that is all they have to offer.

    A child raised by homosexuals has two parents.

    No, if biological, it has one mother or one father who is absent, and another unrelated individual who the adults force the child to make believe is the same sex parent. If adopted then it has absent parents and is being cared for by homosexual nannies, both of whom it is forced to call mommy or daddy. It’s an aberrancy and nothing more than forcing kids to participate in the make believe world of the adults.

    The other one is the other parent.

    Physically and logically impossible outside of the transgendered world of the leftist extremists.

    1+1

    1 + 1 = 2, but 2 males doesn’t equal mom and 2 females doesn’t equal dad. I ask again, which parent is unimportant enough to be expendable??

    It feminizes the men

    How?

    Because they are not standing up and taking responsibility for providing for his family. Psychologically that takes it’s toll on a man.

    And why is that a bad thing?

    Because that’s not something that a real man does, if the situation is avoidable.

    The only reason it might be bad for a man’s self-esteem would be because he’s absorbed the same bullshit gender essentialism that you keep spewing – or he’s bullied or mocked by other assholes who have absorbed the same bullshit gender essentialism that you keep spewing.

    The answer is not to insist that the man not be a homemaker; the answer is to stop spewing bullshit gender essentialism.

    And that has worked just fine to build up humanity to where we are now. You’re trying to ruin it by spewing your social re-constructionist bullshit. You want men to act and look like girls and girls to act and look like men to the point that they aren’t even attractive to the other sex. That way you get more homosexuals. You want to revamp everything that makes us human for your own sexual needs. It’s disgusting.

    It’s not “poison”; it’s the absence of bullsh!t gender essentialism. Society is better off without that, not worse

    .

    I repeat, blahblahyaddayadda

    The Regnerus study was created with deliberate bias by people with a bigoted agenda.

    But that’s ok when the leftists flood the journals with biased information for their viewpoint?? It’s ok when homosexual researchers conduct studies that knowingly introduce biased information, and call on others to do the same?? Hypocrisy noted.

    But not of bias.

    Are homosexual researchers who conduct studies totally free from bias or opinion on the issue??

    In a widely publicized and controversial article, Regnerus (2012a) seeks to evaluate what he calls the “”no-differences” paradigm” with respect to outcomes for children of same-sex parents. We consider the scientific claims in Regnerus in light of extant evidence and flaws in the article”s evidence and analytical strategy. We find that the evidence presented does not support rejecting the no-differences claim, and therefore the study does not constitute evidence for disadvantages suffered by children of same-sex couples. The state of scientific knowledge on same-sex parenting remains as it was prior to the publication of Regnerus.

    Opinions are like a-holes. Everybody has one but some of them smell worse than others. Nothing you have provided refutes the fact that children in general do better in a loving home where their biological parents are married. When you remove them from that situation, they begin becoming at much higher risk for negative behavior, and psychological problems.

    social roles and rape

    There are no social roles involved her, just simple biology. I’ve already addressed the rapist nonsense so drop it.

    It isn’t necessary to admit that the kids are in a less than optimal situation, because your entire argument is based on nothing but bullshit gender essentialism.

    So essentially what you’re saying is that so society can accept homosexuals as parents, we should stop having our kids call us mom and dad?? They should refer to us as parent #1 and parent #2??

    I’ll note this as a concession that your bullshit argument from nature must have been wrong.

    You can make up whatever nonsense you need to help you convince yourself that your view is right, but that doesn’t mean that it matches reality. I concede nothing.

  128. 628
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    I won’t deny that there are some issues that we face today that may not seem crystal clear to those who don’t know God’s intent, as laid out in the Bible, or refuse to accept it.

    Since you god doesn’t exist, no conclusive physical evidence for it has been provided by you, and you babble is nothing but a book of mythology/fiction, as you have provided no conclusive physical evidence too,, your statements are nothing but presuppositional bullshit. Which makes anything based on this bullshit even more bullshit.

  129. 629
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    cientists can’t tell us even what that organism was or how it came about, so your assertion falls on deaf ears and holds no more empirical value than my claim that God exists.

    Only in delusional mind. Your god doesn’t exist. Period, end of story. And until you evidence your imaginary with solid and conclusive physical evidence, evidence that would pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained, like your alleged “gottcha”), origin. Ergo, your argument is false.

  130. 630
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    Still no evidence from third party sources. Still no evidence for AJ’s imaginary deity or babble being inerrant. Nothing but presupposition and bigotry. Typical of those without intelligence, without a clue, or a compass, GPS, and book of hints.

  131. 631
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    I don’t read bigoted bullshit from bullshitters. Prove your deity exists and you are no longer a bullshitter.

  132. 632
    Amphiox

    Because they are not standing up and taking responsibility for providing for his family. Psychologically that takes it’s toll on a man.

    It only takes that toll because of evil, morally bankrupt people like you who unjustly indoctrinate them into thinking that their worth is dependent on this.

    Thank you once again, annejones, for demonstrating, yet again, and so well, how toxic, degenerate, and evil your worldview is.

  133. 633
    annejones

    I’ll note this as a concession that you do indeed believe that gender is totally irrelevant except where you need it to be relevant.

    Wrong, how do you even come to that conclusion when I am saying that gender matters?? You are the one making the very argument that you’re trying to stick on me. Gender effects every aspect of who we are.

    You keep missing the point that gender roles are not necessarily parental roles.

    Gender affects who we are and cannot be suddenly turned off when fulfilling whatever roles we play in our family dynamics.

    The point is what you conceded above: you do indeed believe that gender is totally irrelevant except where you need it to be relevant.

    No, that is your argument not mine.

    Homosexuality cannot be “responsible” for what you’re claiming.

    It plays a big role.

    You know what reduces unwanted children the most?

    Educating young women about birth control options, and providing those options. Always and forever, in every society there is. Studies have been done over the past century, not just decades: Educate young women; provide them with birth control, and birth rates drop.

    Save it for a related thread

    Sexual shame, in and of itself, is not the same as morality.

    How sex is used is very much a moral issue. Shameful acts deserve to be shamed.

    Uh no. We’ve done it your way for 50 years now and it”s just getting worse all the time.

    Exactly: Quality of parenting has precedence over biology.

    But you first need to be in the type of relationship that, barring medical problems, allows for becoming parents. If the type of relationship you’re in prevents you from creating a child with your partner, then there is good reason why we don’t call people in those relationships parents, and they should not be allowed to adopt. Biology should be followed as closely as possible.

    I assure you, I don’t think any such thing.

    Once again: your own arguments about biology trumping everything else imply giving rapists access to their victims” children

    I challenge you to quote where I said that biology trumps everything, in all situations. If you can’t then drop it.

    I agree that you are stupid, but you should spend time figuring out what your position really is.

    If you could read and be honest about what I write you’d know exactly what my position is because I’ve posted it several times for you in this thread.

    Good grief. You sure opened the bigot box and took out every damn smear inside.

    Homosexuals are perfectly capable of having strength, self-control, self-respect (especially when bigots like you aren’t around giving them shit), self-discipline, and of putting the interests of the kids above their own sexual desires.

    You’re right they are capable, but choose not to exhibit those qualities.

    Because homosexuals who want to be parents are more likely to have exactly those qualities.

    No one who is actively homosexual exhibits any of those qualities.

    Or do you argue that only some modern medicine should be used for reproduction?

    As I said, I don’t think ART should be used until we have made the number of kids available for adoption more manageable. I don’t think it should be used for homosexual couples at all, if that’s what you’re asking. Lisa and Isabella Miller is exactly why.

    What you don’t seem to understand is that many of us don’t see “mother” and “father” as separate roles. This isn’t tricky for us. Especially considering that many within our numbers of people who support gay rights are married and have children ourselves.

    How can you see yourselves as men and women but not mothers or fathers, if you have kids?? You don’t separate from your identity when you perform parental tasks.

    As I am a man, is it wrong that I can:

    - change a nappy
    - wash the dishes
    - vacuum the house
    - do the shopping
    - cook a meal
    - hang out the washing
    - hug a distressed child or partner?

    Does this make me less of a man? Should I tremble at your disproval?

    Those are jobs that have to be done, and have little to do with who you are. Heck even a bachelor has to do all but 2 of those jobs. If you share in household chores then good on you. You’re likely to have a happier partner since it isn’t all put on her. Does it make you less of a man?? No, it sends good messages to any kids you might have and tells your partner that you care enough to help. Why would helping around the house be a bad thing for a man??

    You are yet again conflating “parent” and “biological parent” (everyone can only have one biological mother or one biological father, you pillock). Here, this might help: http://dictionary.reference.com… . We are using “parent” in sense 4; whereas you seem to flit between 1, 4 and 5 depending what fits your argument better. This is dishonest, and deliberately so. Pick one definition and stick to it, please.

    lol…You have to go all the way down to 4 to get one that fits, and even in that one a dog can fit into since dogs tend to protect and guard children. Color me impressed…lol

    I’ve been consistent in my arguments. Biology should followed as closely as possible. In extreme situations when the biological parents don’t or can’t care for the kids, adoptive, or step families are used.

    You just denigrated a loving, long term commitment by reducing it to the level of a child playing with a doll’s house. Fuck you. You genuinely disgust me. I’m not joking here; this is not hyperbole. I genuinely find you so disgusting that simply communicating with you via the internet makes me feel like I need a wash.

    You probably do. Go wash and put on your big boy panties.

    Even if I gave you that they have two mother or two fathers, that”s still only more of the same that the one homosexual parent provides, so there still aren”t any “parents”, plural.

    How old are you again? In a debate about homosexual adoption, you whip out “you fuck poo” as an insult? Seriously? Have I been arguing with someone who spends their lunch time playing “tag” this whole time?

    Daddy should have taught you that if you’re going to dish it out you better be able to take it, because it’s going to be given back.

    A “normal” family used to consist of one man and as many women as he could financially support, so this is transparent bullshit.

    In some cultures maybe, but even those families involve father, mother, and children.

    I don”t hate anyone. If I dislike a homosexual it”s because that homosexual is an a-hole. I do however, plead guilty to hating homosexuality because of it”s effects on society.

    Because all homosexuals are immoral right?

    That doesn’t mean they’re immoral in every aspect of their life but in the sexual aspect, yes.

    Again, you disgust me.

    Poor guy.

    You’re aware that means that 33 of them did, right?

    Maths is hard, huh?

    So why didn’t the APA look into the studies enough to notice that before giving a big heads up to it?? Why didn’t it question why many of the other 33 used single mothers as comparisons?? Why do they need to flood the journals with so many irrelevant studies?? What part of any of these studies refute the fact that when children are not raised in a loving home by their biological parents who are married, are at higher risk for negative behaviors and increased psychological problems??

    Repeating refuted bullshit doesn’t make it more true. The overwhelming evidence published by true, not presupposed, investigators show no damage by homosexual parents. What part of that your bigoted mind can’t grasp? Right, there is no way in your diseased mind that homosexual can make good parents. NOTHING BUT BULLSHIT.

    I’m looking for “Do kids need their moms and dads”, you’re looking for “Do homosexuals damage kids”. Is there any doubt that we’re going to read the research differently?? Keep stamping yer widdle feetsies and maybe some new research will show up that says that kids being raised in a loving home by their biological parents will be damaged by that situation.

  134. 634
    Rey Fox

    Sorry that you’d rather see men walking around with their bo-bo’s hanging out their mini-skirts but hey, it is what it is.

    Quoted to show just how far off the rails Anne’s mind is, and hence why I’m pretty much not even bothering to communicate with her anymore. Not a quote-mine either, because it makes even less sense in context.

  135. 635
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    Gender affects who we are and cannot be suddenly turned off when fulfilling whatever roles we play in our family dynamics.

    It plays a big role.

    Uh no. We’ve done it your way for 50 years now and it”s just getting worse all the time.

    You’re right they are capable, but choose not to exhibit those qualities.

    This is only some of your fuckwitted CLAIMS. ALL CLAIMS MUST BE LINKED TO THE SOCIOLOGICAL LITERATURE BACKING UP YOUR CLAIM. YOUR EVIDENCELESS WORD IS DIMSISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

  136. 636
    annejones

    Yes actually, this is the APA supporting our findings. It means that 33 of the 59 studies had heterosexual comparisons and found no harm. Additionally all those studies comparing single parents to gay couples they found the couple was superior to the single mother, which incidentally is actually more reinforcement. The fact that a couple is a better parenting unit than a single mother demonstrates that couples be they homosexual or heterosexual are better than a single parent. Additionally there are many things that can be studies without a comparison sample because you can compare factors to the general population. You can see if any confusions develop from a child of gay couples, you can test their school learning skills, you can see how they do socially or emotionally.

    The APA has found that Children of Homosexual couples do no worse than children of heterosexual couples, and in some cases actually do better (when compared to single parents). Once again you shoot yourself in the foot annejones. You appealed to research in an attempt to show us up by facing us on our own terms, but it turns out that the research is against you.

    I doubt this will dissuade you annejones as you aren’t arguing in good faith. In fact I dare say you won’t read my post at all, you have completely ignored every other post I made in this thread as a response to you. I see no reason to end your unvarnished streak of awfulness. Your most recent failure proves once again you aren’t motivated by the children but by hatred. Your religion tells you to hate gays and you annejones are nothing if not pliable.

    I have already commented, and provided criticism of the APA’s position, and methodology, by other professionals. I see no need to linger on this.

    That means that the null hypothesis that there is NO difference is not rejected. Which is the point us LGBT advocates are making,, medic. It’s also the entire point of the APA”s statement regarding those studies.

    It wasn’t that they had somehow, magically, proven that gay parents were just as good as straight parents, since statistics don’t work that way (at least not the kind of statistics I learned in psych classes that I took on the side and that are used in psych research). The APA”s statement was that there was no evidence that gay parents were worse. And you whining about lack of comparison groups or whatever completely elides that fact. Which is a surprise, I’m sure, to absolutely no-one.

    “Statistical power” is also a fancy word for “numbers of subjects”. Lack of statistical power means not enough subjects in the study to determine if observed differences are real or just a random fluctuation due to chance.

    For example, if you have a quantified result for group A that is 4.01 and a result for group B that is 4.02, does that mean that B is 0.01 better than A, or are they actually identical, but just happened to get an average for B that is a little bit higher in that particular experiment because of randomness. So you look at how many subjects you had in groups A and B, and you can calculate if that number was large enough to differentiate whether or a difference of 0.01 is real or random. If the numbers are big enough then you have disproved your null hypothesis that A and B are the same, and have shown that B is 0.01 better than A. If the numbers are not big enough then you have not disproved the null hypothesis that A and B are the same. This would be a retrospective study.

    Conversely, in a prospective study, you start when planning your experiment by deciding what difference between A and B you would consider to be practically or clinically significant. For example, if you are trying to determine what height makes for a good basketball player, you first must decide whether or not a difference of 1.0cm really matters or not. Once you have determined that clinically significant difference, you calculate how many subjects you must measure BEFORE you do the experiment to find such a difference IF it exists. Then you go and recruit the number of subjects you need. Then, after all is said and done, if you observe a difference of that size or larger, you know you had enough subjects to show that said difference is likely real. You can thus reject your null hypothesis.

    If you observe a smaller difference, it may or may not be real, but it doesn”t matter, because a difference that small has no practical real world significance on the performance index that you care about.

    So how big were those studies on same-sex couples raising children? Since they found no difference, what it means by saying they did not have statistical power in those studies for small differences, is that the differences are so small that you need to look at even more examples before they are even noticeable.

    In other words, you are trying to quibble over differences that would one out of millions and millions of families, even if they did exist.

    I guess my point is, being hetero doesn’t make you a better parent. Period. Hetero couples don’t automatically know how to take care of a baby. There’s no innate childcare knowledge that comes with mixing penises and vaginas.

    In fact, I’d say that same-sex couples are more likely to be better parents. Here’s my reasoning: hetero couples have kids all willy-nilly. They often have kids with complete disregard to their economic ability to take care of a kid, or even their desire (or lack thereof) to even have a kid. Same-sex couples, on the other hand, generally have to plan for their child. They’re more likely to consider their ability to afford to raise a child. They’re more likely to want the child in their lives in the first place. Ergo, they are more likely to love and care for the child.

    All this denial by you is really quite humorous. These days I’m more and more amused watching people publicly attempt to rationalize their bigotry, especially in the face of the inevitable embrace of GLBT folks by the rest of society. The more they wilfully disregard facts in defence of their ignorance, the funnier they get.

    None of this is even relevant. I’m not interested in a long lesson about studies. What you need to come up with is something that shows, not that homosexuals can be good parents, but something that shows that kids don’t need their mothers and fathers. Something that shows that kids don’t do best, as a whole, when they have both a mother and father role being filled, in a loving married home. Until I see that gold standard disproven in a non-biased way, using sound methodology, I will not accept the claim that a mother or a father is expendable, in the life of a child.

  137. 637
    Rey Fox

    Save it for a related thread

    Ha. This is Thunderdome, honey.

  138. 638
    Rey Fox

    I will not accept the claim that a mother or a father is expendable, in the life of a child.

    You haven’t even defined the mother and father roles. You just went off on some vauge waffling about strength and nurturing. Oh, and later on I guess you said that the man is to “provide” for the family, since apparently in the 21st century, only men are capable of making money.

    I’m still wondering why, if the big important task for the father is to show the boy how to be a man, why the boy needs a mother in the first place.

    But really, it all just comes down to you hating gay people, so I don’t know why I’d bother asking.

  139. 639
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    I have already commented,

    Your evidence less word is dismissed as fuckwittery. Try linking to the academic literature that refutes you claims, then don’t make them.

    None of this is even relevant. I

    Sorry cupcake, your word is irrelevant. Dismissed unless you back it up with third party academic evidence. You aren’t even in the discussion.

    You are doing nothing but preaching bigotry. Bigots are abject losers. Are you an abject loser in your own mind? Maybe you need to change your mind.

  140. 640
    changerofbits

    From the Mr Deity victim blaming video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMZ86PGVOQk

    Red Smith 21 hours ago

    I hate you -you forced me to donate money to your channel for the first time today because of how awesome the last half was. I’m going to anonymously let PZ know you robbed me.
    ·
    misterdeity

    misterdeity 19 hours ago

    Mother f….!!!! Thanks. ;-)
    · in reply to Red Smith
    nihilvenitadeus

    nihilvenitadeus 46 minutes ago

    *slow clap*

    Are there any ribbons we can hand out for victim blaming? Bad idea, we might run out if you guys keep this up…
    · in reply to misterdeity
    0ptikz

    0ptikz 44 minutes ago

    That’s a fantastically stupid argument….well done….why not come out and call everyone rape apologists?
    · in reply to nihilvenitadeus
    nihilvenitadeus

    nihilvenitadeus 16 minutes ago

    Ok, then, here goes:

    Glorifying a video that tells people how stupid they are to keep drinking from wine glass, lest they be raped

    =

    Rape Apologist

    After all, bitch was too stupid to stop drinking, who wouldn’t have taken her back to their room and had they’re way with her! *fist pump, wink, wink*
    · in reply to 0ptikz
    0ptikz

    0ptikz 10 minutes ago

    Sorry, but that’s too stupid for me to reply to seriously.

    I can only conclude you have a really warped view of men.
    · in reply to nihilvenitadeus

    nihilvenitadeus

    nihilvenitadeus 24 seconds ago

    I’m a man and I don’t have sex with women who don’t or can’t consent to sex with me. And I sure as hell don’t put them in situations where they can’t consent, just so I can have sex with them.

    I’m ashamed that fellow members of my sex would consider it OK to do otherwise.

    They just don’t get it, I really need to stop…

  141. 641
    John Morales

    annejones:

    I’m looking for “Do kids need their moms and dads”, you’re looking for “Do homosexuals damage kids”. Is there any doubt that we’re going to read the research differently??

    Your perspective is skewed; the proper question is “Do kids need their moms and dads parents”.

    (You’re actually begging the question)

  142. 642
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    AnneJones, your links must be found in places like this: University Library. Found at institutions of higher learning world-wide.

  143. 643
    John Morales

    annejones:

    What you need to come up with is something that shows, not that homosexuals can be good parents, but something that shows that kids don’t need their mothers and fathers.

    So you don’t deny that homosexuals can be good parents, you merely think good parenting is no substitute for being raised by a (heterosexual) mother and a (heterosexual) father.

  144. 644
    Amphiox

    Just because YOU, annejones, poisoned as your are by your degenerate worldview, have been rendered too imbecilic and too immoral to accept it doesn’t make it any less true. Children need adult role models to thrive. Those role models do not have to be a biological mother and a biological father. This is a fact well proven over 100 000 years of empirical experience. Indeed if humans really did need biological parents to thrive we would never have even survived long enough to discover civilization at all. It is in fact our capacity to raise and be raised outside the straitjacketed bonds of biological relationship that sets is apart from nearly all other animals. It is what makes us unique and HUMAN.

    You and you ilk, however, would have us reduced back to the level of rude beasts, the animals of the fields.

  145. 645
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Todays after School Special:
    It is a fact. Children do not need a mother and a father to grow up happy, healthy and well adjusted. They need a loving home. That can be provided by single mothers, single fathers, adoptive mothers, adoptive fathers, biological mother & biological father, two men, two women, and any combo you can think of. The most important thing is a household where children are wanted and loved.

    There are NO reputable studies showing otherwise.
    ****

    Caine, it looks like the assclam will not respond to your bolded text either.

    ****
    The fuckwit known as ANNEJONES does not grok that she is not in charge of the conversation and that the Thunderdome is open to any topics. Which is the only reason her lies and naked hatred of homosexuals is allowed at Pharyngula.

  146. 646
    chigau (違う)

    Can we be done with annejones?

  147. 647
    Rey Fox

    Man strong
    Woman weak
    Man hunt big game
    Woman gather berries
    Children need both meat and berries
    Children need mother and father!

    I think I got the gist of Anne’s-oh wait

    Gays icky!

    Okay, now I got it all covered.

  148. 648
    mildlymagnificent

    No one who is actively homosexual exhibits any of those qualities.

    Not even Australia’s Finance Minister?

    The first 10 minutes are just cooking and family history if you don’t want to spend the whole half hour. But she’s a pretty impressive woman.

  149. 649
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    Can we be done with annejones?

    Require her to link to real evidence for all claims, including her imaginary deity. Reject all non-evidenced claims. She will shut the fuck up in short order, or PZ might ban her for proselytizing…..

  150. 650
    Lofty

    Mildlymagnificent: Yes, I find Penny Wong’s strength quite impressive too.
    .
    .
    .
    Dear annejones, one day I hope your kind of morality based on a 2000 year old book of badly told fairy tales will be replaced totally by a morality based on mutual trust, equal rights, caring, empathy and reason. We’re slowly getting there but you goddists keep getting in the way.

  151. 651
    Lofty

    Nerd, you really need to evolve your neverending refrains. They add little to the conversation. I humbly suggest you try harder to please us with creative invective.

  152. 652
    ChasCPeterson

    Hey, Algernon: great to see yer nym agin. One must keep on keepin on, no?
    Love, CCP (aka Sven)

  153. 653
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    I humbly suggest you try harder to please us with creative invective.

    It’s Friday night and I am fatigued. If the Redhead will allow me get some real sleep….

  154. 654
    cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming)

    Algernon, I missed your contributions, too. Hang in there!

    [this message will self-destruct after five sentences]

    Jadehawk, you pegged me correctly. ;-)

    Dalillama, apologies, I totally misread that. :-/

    I should probably step away from the internet.

    But I’m off on holiday this week, so … that’s going to happen!

    Also … *boof*

  155. 655
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    As far as my cryptic “let me get some sleep” goes, the Redhead needs one or two commode breaks at night. If the second commode break is too close to my normal wake-up time, I don’t get back to sleep. A short night.

  156. 656
    Jill Smith

    Lofty:

    Nerd, you really need to evolve your neverending refrains. They add little to the conversation. I humbly suggest you try harder to please us with creative invective.

    NerdofRedhead:

    It’s Friday night and I am fatigued. If the Redhead will allow me get some real sleep….

    But it’s not just tonight, is it NerdofRedhead? Even PZ has used the red ink (several times recently) to tell you this same thing: your boilerplate responses are boring, trite, add nothing and discourage honest argument.

    I think you could sleep for one hundred years and still not awaken refreshed enough to come up with anything more nuanced than “Evidence. Citation. Presuppositional. Liberturd.”

    It is really so tiresome, I bet you do more to discourage people posting here than do the MRAs. Seems like half the time you use one of your standard replies to attack a Horde member who has quoted some incoming troll, but your comprehension skills are so limited you failed to spot the distinction. People are constantly having to correct you, and I’m sorry if you have a read/write disability, but you’re an embarrassment.

    Why can’t you just shut the fuck up for a week or two, and let us see if people find the atmosphere less toxic or not.

    This is the Thunderdome, and I stand by my words.

  157. 657
    chigau (違う)

    Jill Smith #656
    fuck off

  158. 658
    cicely

    Algernon!
    *non-intrusive demonstration of camaraderie*
    -

    Did anyone else see this: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/16/video-game-writer-leaves-company-after-threats-against-her-children/

    Not ’til now—but I’m totally not surprised. Saddened, upset, angered, and wearied, but not surprised.
    *sigh*
    -

  159. 659
    anteprepro

    annejones spends several posts bleating her long standard screeds and then, consolidating a bunch of posts together, responds thusly on the topic of studies that she keeps bringing up

    None of this is even relevant. I’m not interested in a long lesson about studies.

    That’s anne in a nutshell. She has her talking points and she is sticking to it, and she will allow not facts or logic budge her one inch from her assertions.

    Can we be done with annejones?

    One can hope. She is obviously not worth the effort, and the educational benefit that debunking her brings is diminishing steadily.

  160. 660
    Jill Smith

    chigau @657: shove your “fuck off” up your ass. Sideways.

  161. 661
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Jill Smith:
    While I do find Nerd’s responses tiresome at times, he is not wrong. He is just repetitive. You do not like it, skip over it.
    I don’t like your general attitude, so I am going to agree with chigau: fuck off.

  162. 662
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    This is the Thunderdome, and I stand by my words.

    Fine, stand by your words. But it doesn’t change the presuppositional fuckwittery of AJ…

  163. 663
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    And Jill Smith, there is this thing call “Hush File”. I use with some real bigots. Add me to your list.

  164. 664
    cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming)

    We’re edging towards that magical (and sticky) number. Just saying.

  165. 665
    anteprepro

    Well, before I turn in, just gotta say I commend Nerd’s responses to Jill. Classy, humble, especially considering that what he responded to, and that this is the THUNDERDOME. So, basically, I approve! If it matters.

    ( Oh the trials and travails we must go through without a “like” button.)

  166. 666
    Jill Smith

    Tony: what happened to your silly little “!”? Did you grow up somewhat, you fucking ignorant, childish porcupine-fucker?

    NerdofRedhead: I don’t give a hit about your censorious “hush file”. Or, let’s not forget your history, the so-called “kill file”. Triggering much?

    You are an ignoramous, you are dumb, you are flatus in an elevator, you are a moron, you are stupid, you are a fake scientist. You, sir or madam, are a ludicrous cartoon of a person, who thinks that hiding behind intelligent people, while occasionally popping your head out with a “Citation! Poof!”, endows you with their intelligence. It doesn’t, you fucking ignorant fraud.

  167. 667
    anteprepro

    I don’t give a hit about your censorious “hush file”.

    Facepalm.

    Did you grow up somewhat, you fucking ignorant, childish porcupine-fucker?…You are an ignoramous, you are dumb, you are flatus in an elevator, you are a moron, you are stupid, you are a fake scientist. You, sir or madam, are a ludicrous cartoon of a person,….It doesn’t, you fucking ignorant fraud.

    Glass houses are coming to mind.

  168. 668
    anteprepro

    And Jill Smith’s residual starfarting wins the golden number! Everybody, give her a round of disappointed, passive aggressive applause!

  169. 669
    MissEla

    Wow, annejones, #627 was one of the most horrific comments I’ve ever read on Pharyngula–and that’s in comparison to the deposits left by rape apologists, white supremacists, and misogynists. /boggles

  170. 670
    cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming)

    Jill Smith, if you’re going to sling the word ‘ignoramus’ you could at least spell it correctly.

  171. 671
    Jill Smith

    anteprepo 668

    And Jill Smith’s residual starfarting wins the golden number! Everybody, give her a round of disappointed, passive aggressive applause!

    Hey y’all, let’s hoop and holla as anteprepro show his ignorance! Yeah, go with the ad hominem, big guy! Whoot!

  172. 672
    chigau (違う)

    Cool.
    666

  173. 673
    cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming)

    D’oh!! JillSmith666…

  174. 674
    Jill Smith

    cm

    Jill Smith, if you’re going to sling the word ‘ignoramus’ you could at least spell it correctly.

    Oh no, you didn’t? Really? A single misspelling? That’s your best shot?

    Fuck me up the ass with a sideways porcupine, NerdofRedhead can barely go three words without some dumbfuck spelling mistake, have a got at xer.

    You ridiculous piece of goose shit, go die in a fucking fire.

  175. 675
    LykeX

    You can save all that evolutionary gobbledygook for your friends, it has no credibility in this thread until you can show what that original ancestor is and how it came about.

    Hold on a second. You’re the one who brought up this subject. You’re the one that wanted to talk about the “original ancestor”. You even specifically brought evolution into it.

    …it doesn’t matter whether you believe in evolutionism, or creation. Imagine the original ancestor of any sexually reproducing species, they all started with a mother, father, and children.

    And now, when it turns out you were wrong about the basic facts, suddenly you don’t want to talk about it anymore.

    Furthermore, you seem to have missed the point that sexually reproducing species without the normal mammalian gender distinctions exist today. This isn’t some idea that relies on accepting evolution. You can go and look at some right now. You can observe their mating patterns yourself.
    It’s present in an organism as common as yeast, which has two “genders” distinguished only by tiny bits of DNA and some surface receptors.

    So, you tried faking scientific knowledge and was predictably caught out. Instead of owning up to your mistake, you’re trying to disavow the very subject that you brought up to support your position.

  176. 676
    Jill Smith

    Oh, sorry, cm came back with the amazing fact that one of quotes was number 666.

    “You can take the person out of religious superstition, but…”

  177. 677
    John Morales

    Quite the Pharyngula aficionado you are, Jill.

  178. 678
    LykeX

    Yeah, go with the ad hominem, big guy!

    OMG, what is it with these people?

  179. 679
    anteprepro

    Hey y’all, let’s hoop and holla as anteprepro show his ignorance! Yeah, go with the ad hominem, big guy! Whoot!

    lolwut?

    You know, one of your criticisms of Nerd was that he messed up reading comprehension, accidentally attacking regulars for things they didn’t say. Do you want to try wracking your brain again and trying to figure out what I was saying at 668?

    Hint: It wasn’t really about you.
    So that means it couldn’t possibly be an ad hominem!
    So that means I have no idea how my ignorance could factor into this!

    Bonus Hint: Read 664.

    Super-duper Extra Bonus Hint That I Am Sure You Will Still Need: Read 672, 673.

    Do you have enough clues yet?

    Oh, sorry, cm came back with the amazing fact that one of quotes was number 666.
    “You can take the person out of religious superstition, but…”

    Apparently not.

  180. 680
    anteprepro

    Quite the Pharyngula aficionado you are, Jill.

    That actually made me laugh. Just the perfect description, really.

  181. 681
    cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming)

    Charmed, I’m sure.

    Said in the voice of any of the grownups who’ve been licked by Gaston the ladybird.

    I suspect you won’t get the cultural reference. Tant pis.

  182. 682
    anteprepro

    Also, missed this gem:

    You ridiculous piece of goose shit, go die in a fucking fire.

    I think you really need to step away from the computer. I mean, seriously, we are very accepting of rage and harsh language around here. But there’s still such a thing as having way too much anger, completely disproportionate to what you are responding to. You really need to cool off or something.

  183. 683
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    jill Smith:
    Insults are one thing. I could care less if you insult me.
    But you clearly do not share the values of the humanists here. Telling someone to go die in a fire? I despise ANNEJONES, but would never wish her harm. I don’t know why you felt the need to infest this place with your shit, but you need to back that train outta here.

    You crossed the line you abominable shitbubble

  184. 684
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    Dollars to donuts, Jill Smith is a sockpuppet of yet another banned troll. “Censorious”…?

  185. 685
    oaksterdam

    You know, I was kinda on Jill Smith’s side for a second there but xe seems to have taken turn one a bit too fast and flown off into the bleachers. ProTip/Confession: I tend to scroll past Nerd. Never occurred to me to go full tilt lose-my-shit over it. That does look like fun, now that I’ve seen it in action. Maybe I’ll give it a shot next time.

    Now, annejones, can we talk? Gay people exist, they have families, with kids and all. It’s a thing, look it up. Here’s something you may not be aware of though: Snooki is breeding. Seriously, we as a society got distracted or something and Snooki is no fucking shit bearing offspring. I’m just trying to point out that your fight for the family unit may be facing the wrong direction.

  186. 686
    PZ Myers

    I say it over and over again: sockpuppetry is a bannable offense.

    Jill Smith/Paul Gibson, you are banned.

  187. 687
    PZ Myers

    NEW THREAD.

Comments have been disabled.