851. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #61141 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 11:26 pm

V:

What do you reckon happened? Interesting stuff. He's not the only one who says it either. Straaaange stuff:-)

I'd say you summed it up pretty well. A combination of perceived credibility in says "I was an atheist, but now I've seen the light..." and reverting to faith that was instilled at some time due to duress or lack of happiness with self.
Once the faith virus has a person, they can switch off their bullshit filter. I mean, to say that there is something out there, that can't be measured, but which can interfere with this world is saying that nothing can influence something. It violates a law of thermodynamics that says matter and energy are constant in a closed system. This law has oodles of evidence, the object of faith has none. So, faith makes believers dishonest......nasty.

852. Islamic creationist group launches glitzy, global blitz

Comment #61136 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 8:34 pm

A part of me smirks that their going backward. Good education and science are essential for a country to remain healthy and not fall into decay. Idiots.
But then I think, they're people, and it's sad that by being born in dogmatic societies they'll effectively be condemned to wallow. Of course, they'll then turn around and see prosperous, educated countries and think to themselves why doesn't their god, who holds them so dear, give them prosperity? Then they'll start the suicide bombs to soothe their damaged egos..... Too gloomy?

853. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #61135 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 8:27 pm

V:

Has the Flea gone to Bulgaria already? Biz must be away as well. Bliss!!

They'll be back to regale us with inanity and illogic soon enough :)

854. The Out Campaign

Comment #61134 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 8:19 pm

Northern Bright and _J_: great posts. Pretty much what I was trying to get at with WeeFlea. He claims empirical evidence to justify his beliefs, then says it's not perceptible. If you can't perceive it, it's not distinguishable from imagination. And to believe something on this basis, even worse to claim truth seems dishonest.
But anyway. I didn't expect any acknowledgment from WeeFlea that his faith is not reasonable. That it's not honest as he has no evidence to back his claims. But I thought I'd give him the chance. So far, every person of faith to whom I've issued the challenge has responded in the same fashion. Seems the faith protection mechanism is pretty standard. I won't use induction to generalize to all people of faith just yet though......

855. Don't vote for ignorance

Comment #60958 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 7:17 am

Sidfaiwu, are you the same Sidfaiwu from relgious freaks? If so, how's it going old aquaintance? I used to post on that site under the name Brian, but Mohamed's illogicality and Neandos sillyness just drove me to give up.....

856. The Out Campaign

Comment #60948 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 7:00 am

Already posted Henri. Not to worry, you learn from a great mind's mistakes as well as his triumphs.

857. The Out Campaign

Comment #60944 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 6:52 am

Bugger, I just ordered the Tractatus through Amazon. I'll never get the "right" idea. Damn Philosophers, can't make up their minds.

858. The Out Campaign

Comment #60940 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 6:45 am

Henri:

Your allusion that I, possibly like Nietzsche, am afraid of women was ironic.

That wasn't my allusion. I was unsure of posting the comment because you might take it that way. But you said to be strong...Anyway, I thought that you may idolize Nietsche and thus have unknowingly taken on some of his ego soothing anger at women.
Russell indeed was an aristocrat. But to his credit he stood up for things he believed in and went to jail because he disagreed with the 1st world war. He saw the problems with the USSR long before others and was stopped from working in the US because of his liberal views about sex.

If he was some He-Man lookalike, one could accuse him of bias!

Or if he was a feeble person, he might imagine himself as an unapreciated giant who crushed those who he felt didn't treat him as he saw himself. It's a matter of perspective.

Wittgenstein ultimately rejected Russell's philosophy but admired Nietzsche.

Wittgenstein ultimately rejected Wittgenstein if I recall. The point being metaphysics isn't a physics. I'll take inductive evidence over metaphysical coherence any day. Probably shows my ignorance.

859. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60935 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 6:34 am

My fault Russell, I don't always think before I post. Will email you if I need more info.

860. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60929 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 6:25 am

Russell, 15th August. 6.30pm at trades hall?
I'd like to hear your take on morality. I read the book about the basics of ethics that you recommended and have half read the singer book (I get distracted by other books, been reading Russell, logic books and Hume, whilst studying psychology). I think the easiest way to show that god (thus religion) doesn't determine religion is to say "If god determines religion, then good is meaningless, for example what if god said child molestation was good?
Believer's answer: Oh god would never say that was good.
No believer's reply: then god doesn't determine morality. We can all see that child molestation is bad..."

861. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60922 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 6:06 am

Russell, have you debated WeeFlea or Danielos. Or do you have the wisdom to know it's a waste?
Still aiming to make your talk on the 15th. Do I need to book?

862. The Out Campaign

Comment #60919 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 6:00 am

And I'll root my boot if anybody disagrees with ya lad!

863. The Out Campaign

Comment #60915 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 5:49 am

Vous etes devoir avoir beaucoup boissons dans mon celebre nom mon cher monsieur....Allons les enfants de la boisson....

864. The Out Campaign

Comment #60908 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 5:39 am

Feliz cumpleaños Felipe mil novocientos setenta y ocho. Que tus sueños submarinos se cumplan. :)

865. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60905 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 5:34 am

Epeeist. Logic is king (except when beer is present.) Something WeeFlea will refuse to acknowledge, even though, on some level he can see that his view are illogical. He just hasn't opened his mind enough to choose. Not that you can just "choose" to open your mind. So, he'll lie into the near future. If it becomes asinine to him he may change. Perhaps he'll learn that evidence of nothing implies it's unreasonable (thus unethical) to believe in that nothing. Just because it may be metaphysicaly comprehensible, doesn't mean it's probable......
Sigh....

866. The Out Campaign

Comment #60900 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 5:24 am

SG, my state is a bit of a new comer. Probably Cambrian. But they say the Australian Craton is the oldest continental mass known (whatever that's worth). Probably wrong, but the time the Caledonian orogeny was swinging, my part of the world was part of the original super continent and we were possibly all tropical neighbors. If you go to Plockton, you'll not find that unusual......

867. The Out Campaign

Comment #60893 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 4:59 am

Actually a nice granite is hard to go past. Trevetine or something they call call the pink one from Italy. That's sexy. A good marble has a plegmatic feel...

868. The Out Campaign

Comment #60891 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 4:57 am

Billy, how can you go past a good porphyritic schyst? Then again, I grew up in the newer volcanics region of Oz, and am partial to a nice Olivine bomb. My first attempt at tertiary education was Geology. I was very able, but very immature and insecure so dropped out. Not to worry, I later completed a computer science degree and am now half-way through a psychology degree.

869. The Out Campaign

Comment #60886 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 4:30 am

Billy, the OT can't be totally abandoned. The doctrine of original sin, which makes WeeFlea feel so dirtily sanctimonious only works if you accept that Eve (had to be a female, us guys have a lot to answer for) was smart enough to see if god was a total tosser and eat from his tree of knowledge (again, only a guy would say knowledge means bonking). Abrahamic religions make liars of all believers. WeeFlea for example denies the 1st law of Thermodynamics and conceives of ideas without energy or matter influencing real things. Liar.

870. The Out Campaign

Comment #60884 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 4:25 am

SG, are all the granites in Scotland Devonian? In Victoria (my state) they are.

871. Could these books be part of the problem?

Comment #60882 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 4:20 am

Corylus:

I looked to see if there was a 'complete idiot's guide to atheism'.

I know that makes a lot of atheists feel smug that there's no idiot's guide to atheism, but is that because a guide to atheism requires you to be blank or because we atheists are so smart that you can't write an idiots guide for us? Personally, I think it's because we're aiming for the blank stage, thus we're arriving at what an innocent idiot would conceive of the world (metaphysically), not a WeeFlea sophisticated idiot. Put another way, we were all born atheist, so that blank state is atheist. The sophisticated state of forced belief or disbelief is tiresome to me.
(Caveat paucus pulex - est stultus deinde non respondere)

872. The Out Campaign

Comment #60846 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 1:50 am

WeeFlea:

This is a fundamental difference. I do not believe the universe consists only of what I can perceive. It is far greater than that.

And by your own agreement, that it's unethical to claim knowledge or belief of something that is unreasonable. Your belief that the universe consists of more than you can perceive makes you dishonest. You can't perceive it, so you can't honestly say it exists or it's reasonable to say it exists. It may very well, but you have no evidence for it. Only a dishonest person would affirm knowledge of something they can't possibly know or say it's reasonable to believe in something imagined.

absolute rubbish. Biblical Christianity teaches that all human beings are created equally in the image of God and are fully human and should be treated and respected as such.

What christianity teaches and what christians do are not the same. So many christian preachers say that those who don't follow the christian message are evil, doing the devils work or hell bound. It's only a short step from there to the gas chambers.

V: Glad I made your day. My memory didn't fail me. That a pretty accurate recall of Russell. Nietsche apparently thought ordinary people were defective, and women more so. Only an elite aristocracy had the right stuff to lead and endure some Spartan existence where pain and cruelty were the good.

873. The Out Campaign

Comment #60811 by BAEOZ on August 2, 2007 at 11:40 pm

V, Henri seems a big fan of Nietzche. I have not read any of his work. In that sense, as I stated earlier, I'm ignorant of his writings. I have however read Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" and in his comments about Nietzche, if I recall correctly, he said Nietsche was a man who said women basically exist for man's pleasure and that a man should use the whip with them (or something similar). Russell noted that Nietzche was physically feeble and his only regular feminine company was his sister. He had been rejected by women at some stage I think. He also commented that due to his frailness, 9 out of 10 women would be able to rip the whip from Nietzche's hand and whip him instead. Thus, Nietsche kept away from women, as he feared that they would scorn him, and only wrote denigratingly about them. Perhaps Nietzche's view of women has influenced Henri subconsciously. Of course Russell could've just been bigoted against Nietzche.....
Apologies if I got it wrong about Russell's comments on Nietzche, I don't have the book with me. I shall check it when I get home.
Henri can tell me I'm wrong with these statements, and as I said, it's just my recollection of Bertrand Russell's views.

874. The Out Campaign

Comment #60804 by BAEOZ on August 2, 2007 at 9:40 pm

Nite Goldy, have a few for me thanks.

875. The Out Campaign

Comment #60798 by BAEOZ on August 2, 2007 at 9:09 pm

I liked it. Not having read a lot of the authors he quoted, I probably didn't get all I could out of it. But that just means I know which authors I want to read in the future.

876. The Out Campaign

Comment #60792 by BAEOZ on August 2, 2007 at 8:57 pm

Henri, have you read Michel Onfray's "Atheist Manifesto?" He mentions Nietzche a lot, seems to quite admire him, but didn't think he went far enough at attacking religion/god.

877. The Out Campaign

Comment #60785 by BAEOZ on August 2, 2007 at 8:46 pm

Henri:

Moreover, of course women are worse at sport.

If it's a sport that emphasizes hunting capabilities such as strength, endurance, etc, then yes you'd imagine men, in general, would have a physical advantage. Like weightlifting or rugby. If it were a sport that emphasized female attributes - and lets face it, men invented most of our sports while women were forced to wear corsets and faint which limits the field - then obviously a women would out. I think the problem is the sample of sports is skewed in favor of men because men have determined what's a sport to their advantage. Imagine a man competing in a sport that took advantage of a woman's physiological capabilities. Men would cry their eyes out. Perhaps a sport in pain endurance, women are supposed to sook less then men....

878. The Out Campaign

Comment #60780 by BAEOZ on August 2, 2007 at 8:32 pm

Goldy:

Had to collect sheep tracheae from an abbatoir in Palmerston North here in NZ. An hour of watching sheep sliding down a chute, their throats torn open and blood spurting (and how!), heads writhing, etc, etc. Felt strangely unmoved and had a lamb pizza on the first evening after work and then lamb shanks on the second evening.
Maybe I am immoral - I would be in a vegetarian world. But Baeoz, they did taste good! :-D

I hear you. I grew up on a farm. We raised animals for food. So, we used to joke about and call a pet lamb "lunch". I personally had to chop the heads off old chooks and get rid of the feathers and viscera. We would get a butcher in to kill a bullock or several sheep and I'd have to get rid of the viscera (hated it because it was backbreaking wheelbarrowing it all through a few paddocks so that foxes wouldn't hang around, but found the viscera quite fascinating). Anyway, I also worked at an abbatoir for 3 months, mainly with the skins and always saw the viscera, including unborn calfs, going past my head on their way to the renderer. It never put me off meat. Guess that makes me an evil fuck. :)
Oh yeah, used to hunt and kill bunnies too. I'm bad. Still, needs must.

879. The Out Campaign

Comment #60760 by BAEOZ on August 2, 2007 at 7:49 pm

Henri:

Pleasure - sorry if I sound patronising. Bad habit.

to which I have to reply:

Don't apologise - be strong... (grrr...)

Gotta love blockquotes.

880. The Out Campaign

Comment #60755 by BAEOZ on August 2, 2007 at 7:42 pm

Henri, because it gives me an excuse to drink Boags Premium beer. That makes me feel good. It gives me a rational to enjoy food and company I like. That feels good to me and doesn't hurt anybody else as far as I can tell. Also, it means I can have sex with my wife as we please, just as homosexuals can do their own business. It means I don't go around killing animals inhumanely, which Christianity and the other abrahamic religions have nothing to say about. It means basically that I won't fuck with you if you don't fuck with me. But I will help you if I think I can and it's not going to fuck me or others over too much. Also, I'm not a naturally agressive person, so it fits well with my nature I guess.
This is not to say it's been well thought out, but it's where I am at this point in time. I am still to read Spinoza's Ethics and will get to Nietzche soon. So, at this point I'll have to say that I'm ignorant of what Nietzche has to offer in the way of ethics, but now I know this, I'll read the book and see if it works for me.
At this point you know more than I but thanks for the headsup. :)

[EDIT:] I just realized that I eat meat and I've seen the workings of an abatoir. So, indirectly I am involved in cruelty to animals. You're right, I'm a christian lacky :)

881. The Out Campaign

Comment #60748 by BAEOZ on August 2, 2007 at 7:30 pm

Henri:

But you still hold Christian ideals. I.e. you believe in slave morality.

Possibly, but my ethics are utilitarian not christian as far as I can tell. Maximize happiness whilst minimizing suffering (oversimplification).

Yorker:

Dehumanisation makes it easier to kill a victim in cold blood, but when another human is trying to kill you, it suddenly becomes easy to kill him, humanity goes out the window.

Very true. But we were talking about regular killing of like infanticide and the Vikings view of killing in which they saw the enemy or a pacifist as less than human. Not self defense which is obviously necessary to survive and procreate.

882. The Out Campaign

Comment #60740 by BAEOZ on August 2, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Whilst I was indoctrinated into the Catholic morality rubbish. I don't think abortion is bad. I have no problem with stem cell research. I think the idea of god is a great diservice to humankind and totally dishonest. So, maybe my indoctrination didn't work that well.

883. The Out Campaign

Comment #60737 by BAEOZ on August 2, 2007 at 7:08 pm

Henri, no I'm not female. Second I'm sure my moral code was indoctrination. But it does still appear to be universal the dislike of killing innocents and child abuse. Even cultures that performed infanticide, like the Spartans and Eskimoes did so for either ideological (Sparta) or survival (Eskimo) reasons. Given the choice, a Spartan would raise his child, he was just indoctrinated to believe an unhealthy child was bad because all Spartans had to fight. An eskimo would kill babies because of lack of resources and especially girls because there would quickly be a population imbalance between male hunters, who die more often , than females. If they could give the child away to a couple that wanted a child, they would.

884. The Out Campaign

Comment #60731 by BAEOZ on August 2, 2007 at 6:56 pm

Henri:

he Spartans continually killed defective babies, and the Vikings only went to heaven ('Valhalla') if they died in battle.

You're playing fast and loose with the facts. The spartans were indoctrinated to believe that Sparta was above all, including life. Like people of religious faith, their indoctrination led to them to praise an act they would naturally see as wrong. And this again is the case with the vikings, they believed they'd go to Valhalla and fight all day and feist all night. This belief overrode their inate response. Same with muslim bombers and their promise of heaven. Like they say, it takes faith to make a good man perform bad acts. :) I guess all you need to do to kill is dehumanise a person. If you see them as human, then you find it hard to kill. All faiths seem to lead to believers seeing non believers as less than human. The Nazis terming the Jews as untermenschen for example....
But, I do agree that morality changes (with the examples about murder and child abuse). Slavery is now bad for example.

885. The Out Campaign

Comment #60728 by BAEOZ on August 2, 2007 at 6:44 pm

Henri:

'inate adaptive responses' are facts, not moral tenets. Aggression is also an adaptive response - is it therefore moral?

Well henry, I think you're trying to trick this little socially conditioned devil. Sometimes aggression is good, sometimes bad, depends on it's purpose. I don't know of anybody who'd feel good about murdering someone or sexually assaulting a baby. My point is that it always feels bad. I'm not saying all adapative responses can be termed good or bad. Morality to me is pretty utilitarian but some things seem to be hardwired.

886. The Out Campaign

Comment #60723 by BAEOZ on August 2, 2007 at 6:35 pm

Henri:

You missed the point: By saying "killing is wrong" you produce a statement that cannot be proven right or wrong, and so is meaningless. All moral propositions are social.

I apologize for missing the point. My point though was that we term it wrong because we are disgusted by it. So it can be said that wrong is meaningful and thus some morality is just naming inate adaptive responses. Of course if murder is your thing, then saying it's wrong has no meaning to you. And you probably then don't murder because you see it as a bad thing for society. :)

887. The Out Campaign

Comment #60718 by BAEOZ on August 2, 2007 at 6:24 pm

Henri:

If you believe in morality you are just as deluded as the religious.

Interesting, you use an example about money to prove a much larger point. I agree with your point about money, but don't know if you can generalize. Killing a person for example, can be said to be "wrong" because we are revolted by it (well, most of us seem to be). This is probably because of some evolutionary trait, not by divine fiat. But if this and cases like revulsion to child molestation can feel wrong, then morality can be said to exist. It would seem some part of morality, like your money example are of the social contract variety and thus not real, and some like disgust at murder are physiological and thus real. Thoughts?

888. The Out Campaign

Comment #60703 by BAEOZ on August 2, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Henri:

By the way, to all you plebian sciencebots: data studies on a hypothesis doesn't mean the hypothesis is true, even if data matches it. Consider Newton's laws or Aristotle's belief that a stone goes to the ground as it naturally belongs there (data would 'prove' him right).

No shit Henri, all you can say about a hypothesis is that it's supported by the evidence, not yet disproved. As for Newton's laws they were accepted until more data came along and showed them lacking. They are still a good approximation. Aristotles belief too made sense till more data came along.
This relates to my point, which I got via _J_ that it's reasonable to accept a belief when it's supported by data. God has no data, law of thermodynamics, shit loads. It's dishonest to believe in anything that violates that law (souls that can't be detected, gods, spirits, etc). If you can overturn that law, then do so and honest people will adjust their beliefs.
Your statement about a priori versus a postiori is nice, but not helpfull. 2 + 2 = 4 is a priori, but until you've added 2 duos to make a quadruple, you'd not be able to deduce this abstract knowledge.
Without empricial knowledge you'd not know an a priori fact. Without inductive reasoning, which you term weak, we'd not have any scientific discovery. I don't think the support for evolution, for example, is weak. There's shitload of evidence, from many fields. It's got a high probability. Therefore it's dishonest to hold a belief that evolution is false until you can debunk the theory. Such as finding a bunny in the pre-cambrian I guess..... :)

889. The Out Campaign

Comment #60676 by BAEOZ on August 2, 2007 at 4:29 pm

V, loved your post. It's good to let of steam now and then. WeeFlea probably takes it as a badge of honour, doing it for his dishonest faith.

890. The Out Campaign

Comment #60670 by BAEOZ on August 2, 2007 at 4:23 pm

WeeFlea:

actually evidence is something that is very difficult to define. You reduce it and narrow it to something that you can prove by a scientific experiment. I cannot reduce reality to such a limit. That is one of the fundamental differences between us.

OK, Please define evidence and offer some evidence that can't be measured. And please state how you can say that it exists if you can't perceive it. If you can perceive it, then it's measurable.
You see the problem? If you claim you can't measure or perceive something, then you have to be honest and say that you have no reasonable basis to believe it. To perceive it, requires it be have energy or matter. Remember the 1st law of thermodynamics has a phenomenal amount of evidence. If you claim to be able to circumvent it or nullify it, then either you can rewrite that law, you'll get the praise of all scientists and lovers of truth for that, or you're a liar. It's quite simple. Which is it?

891. The Out Campaign

Comment #60461 by BAEOZ on August 2, 2007 at 2:12 am

WeeFlea:

You will of course need to define what you mean by evidence. (and I think you will have to do a little better than 'if you cannot measure it with equipment then it does not exist!).

Evidence is something we can evidence. Something we can empirically note. Something that is experienced in a measurable way. It's not a difficult word.
Tell me this, how do you know something if you can't measure it? You don't. It in all probability is imagination.
For something to be real, it must have an effect on you. If it has an effect on you, being matter and energy, it will be matter and energy. Anything else violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. If it's not measurable, you cannot say it's real. Otherwise you are dishonest. We both agreed with this before. Don't go back now and say revelation or imagination are fact.

892. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #60431 by BAEOZ on August 1, 2007 at 11:49 pm

Downunder:

Before birth a foetus can be checked to be alive but it still is a part of the mother.

I'm not aware of any way that a fetus can be said to be part of the mother. You're refering here to placental mammals, which develop from a single cell to viable lifeform during a certain period then are delivered.
This cell and later lifeform is a essentially parasite taking nutrients from the mother. The method of obtaining nutrients and ridding itself of waste is of course via the placenta (hence placental) which touches the interior of the uterus. It is never part of the mother. In fact, if zygote didn't implant itself in the uterine wall via chemicals and release hormones the mother's natural defenses would rid her body of the cell like a bacteria or any other foreign body.
As to your example about lambs. Are you saying the vet gives them life? I too have seen vets and farmers revive newborns, but they weren't dead to start with, just close to death.

Was the life, that has just left, not THE energy that livened up the system? Was the life, that has just left, not THE energy that livened up the system?

Then if life were energy and it left the system, there's been a net loss of energy which would be measurable. This never has been measured. So your concept of life as energy doesn't work. I know there's an urban myth about loosing 21 grams upon dying, but it is a myth.
You seem to have a metaphysical conception of life that does violate the laws of nature. Your analogy about music seems odd to me. To me music is vibrations in a medium, that is sounds. The fact that the human brain interprets these vibrations as beautiful suggests some sounds had or have an evolutionary usefullness. Similar to sugar seeming sweet. We perceive sugar as sweet, that makes us crave it. A useful adaptation, it is a high source of energy available only when fruit is ripe. These days it's not so useful due to overabundance of sweet foods. There's nothing intrinsically sweet about sugar. Likewise, there anything intrisically beautiful in sound. And I love music, but that's just because my brain adapted that way.

893. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #60424 by BAEOZ on August 1, 2007 at 10:19 pm

Hi Danielos, what is the problem you see with naturalism and consciousness? I know there's been a heap of posts but can you give a concise defintion of naturalism as you conceive it and why this poses a problem for that philosophy? Apologies if you have already.
Also, how do you get around the problem that you assume god, then look for him? Answering the question about god when you've already assumed god is begging the question. How can you know that you're world view is not just wishful thinking?
By the way, what is your view about Hitler being atheist now?

894. The Out Campaign

Comment #60390 by BAEOZ on August 1, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Henri:

I am genuinely interested in this as I think no-one has ever answered the 'gay question'.

Ok, you've got me thinking, so I'll put on my thinking hat. When I was growing up in a rural area, I was told that rams were into buggery as much as into doing the ewes. Now, these rams would be successfully procreating, as the farmer would cull rams that didn't sire lambs. So, we have the homosexual act and the heterosexual act occurring in the same "healthy" organism. I can't see the genetic liability or asset of rams being homosexual, as it were. Perhaps it's because they have been unnaturally selected by humans that this can occur. Perhaps sheep are bisexual. Perhaps homosexuality really isn't about gene selection. Can I reasonably infer anything from the behaviour of sheep to humans? Thoughts?

895. The Out Campaign

Comment #60383 by BAEOZ on August 1, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Steve99:

Well, being called an evolutionary reject has that affect :)

Indeed. I was being flippant with my comments. I've not been persecuted for some trait that I didn't choose.

896. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #60381 by BAEOZ on August 1, 2007 at 5:45 pm

I must say V, you do sound like a cool person. I love the blackboard idea. You're not at all the ivory tower type. Keep up that good work. :)

897. The Out Campaign

Comment #60376 by BAEOZ on August 1, 2007 at 5:34 pm

That's cool Henri. I was only having a bit of fun. It would seem that both you and Steve have a bit of emotional involvement in this discussion. Thus, I'll keep my crap attempts at humor to myself.
Cheers.

898. The Out Campaign

Comment #60373 by BAEOZ on August 1, 2007 at 5:27 pm

Henri:

For example, they are the only known apes to engage in oral sex. In this species, the female is generally dominant - again an oddity.

Shh! Don't tell that to all those girls who I convinced that oral sex was a normal act! And please tell my wife that it's not normal to be dominant! Henri, why do you not think humans are apes?

899. The Out Campaign

Comment #60369 by BAEOZ on August 1, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Henri:

Bad grammar is always an indication of a bad argument. I suppose you think Hollywood gay alpha males, as it were, are a good representation of reality.

I didn't realise my grammar was that bad. It was just a stream of consciousness ramble. Feel free to point out where I failed.
I didn't really have an argument, except to say that in my limited experience, I've seen nothing to suggest that being gay indicates feeble genes. I wasn't saying your explanation, it's only a theory if it can be refuted, didn't quite convince me. As for Hollywood being reality; I don't think it is, but it sure fooled more than a few hetro women when presenting gay guys as hetro men. Weird....

900. The Out Campaign

Comment #60361 by BAEOZ on August 1, 2007 at 5:05 pm

Henri:

the obvious evolutionary reason for homosexuality is that it is nature's way of stopping the reproduction of feeble genes.

It's funny, when you see some of Hollywood's alpha males and all their manliness (Rock Hudson), or those gay guys who can bench press a small car and suggest that the gayness is because of feeble genes (I've met some gay guys who could tear you a new a-hole in a nanosecond and not break a sweat), it doesn't quite work for me. But then common sense has never been a good scientific guide.