2351. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187521 by Quetzalcoatl on June 2, 2008 at 9:24 am

Appleby said-

I simply don't think it's worth taking the risk when the lives of children are involved just to appease homosexuals

But some straight adoptive parents may be abusive, or even paedophiles. Is it worth taking the risk when the lives of children are involved just to appease heterosexuals?

2352. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187455 by Quetzalcoatl on June 2, 2008 at 6:53 am

Appleby- you seem to have gotten yourself trapped in a corner, and you can't back down without losing a lot of face. Take the hit, man. You're becoming target-practice for everyone.

2353. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187387 by Quetzalcoatl on June 2, 2008 at 4:55 am

Appleby-

then why do you claim that it is "quite an assumption"?

2354. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187379 by Quetzalcoatl on June 2, 2008 at 4:51 am

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

I think it's a far larger assumption to claim that they can't be altruistic, compassionate and loving.

2355. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187355 by Quetzalcoatl on June 2, 2008 at 3:15 am

Not to blow my own trumpet, but here's my take on the whole "fundamentalist atheist" thing.

PS- welcome back, Philip!

2356. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #187346 by Quetzalcoatl on June 2, 2008 at 2:34 am

Peribolos-

Someone needs to invent forum software that automatically filters out posts with bible quotes in.

Seek, and ye shall find.

2357. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187212 by Quetzalcoatl on June 1, 2008 at 1:47 pm

To Phil Rimmer-

just calm down, take it easy.

To everyone else-

when are the men in white coats getting here? This guy could flip out at any moment.

2358. 'Uncontacted tribe' sighted in Amazon

Comment #187209 by Quetzalcoatl on June 1, 2008 at 1:35 pm

thewhitepearl-

They forgot to mention missionaries

That was covered under "new diseases".

2359. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187206 by Quetzalcoatl on June 1, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Mitchell-

perhaps some kind of camp could be set up to help reform the mustardites, set them on the straight and narrow so to speak?

2360. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187199 by Quetzalcoatl on June 1, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Mitchell-

The big question is this: is mustardality a consequence of nature or nurture?

2361. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187192 by Quetzalcoatl on June 1, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Phil-

The thing that struck me about the article was how romantic the gay relationship thing could be. Much less likely to be centered around procreation, it could be merely for its own sake.

Perhaps. I suppose, as with all relationships, it depends on the participants. What I've never really understood is why some people consider gay relationships to somehow be on a lower par to straight ones.

I suspect Appleby derived from the article precisely what would concur with his preconceived opinions on the subject.

EDIT-

EDIT Stop all this smutty marmite talk! Its making me..... quite....er...oh, God. I thought I had these urges under control....Help me...

That isn't a moustache on the face of your avatar, is it.... ;)

2362. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187188 by Quetzalcoatl on June 1, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Noodly-

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

2363. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187183 by Quetzalcoatl on June 1, 2008 at 12:27 pm

MaxD-

My bad. There are so many problems, it's hard to list them all.

2364. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187179 by Quetzalcoatl on June 1, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Appleby-

the article is interesting, but hardly convincing.

2365. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187163 by Quetzalcoatl on June 1, 2008 at 11:49 am

Appleby-

I'm not talking about "putting" gays anywhere. My guess is they'd choose their own communities given the chance.

Utilising your extensive knowledge of the "gay mindset" to make that guess, I suppose.

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

Oh, very scientific.

2366. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187157 by Quetzalcoatl on June 1, 2008 at 11:42 am

Appleby-

I think homosexuals are better off living in communities of their own. They'll be more comfortable there. I don't mind having them as my neighbour. I would prefer a straight person, though. At least then we can talk and joke about more stuff (e.g. girls).

What an interesting idea. I especially like where you seem to think that they'll be more comfortable in their own communities- have you been appointed spokesman for all homosexuals?

Oh, and is it purely male homosexuals, or would the same apply to females? What about bisexuals? Probably safer to put them in the communities, just to minimise the possibility that one of them might make you uncomfortable.

Science also tells us that gay couples are less faithful to each other

What science is that again?

2367. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187008 by Quetzalcoatl on June 1, 2008 at 4:25 am

Clearthinker said:

If Steve Jones wants to present his case then he is going to have to do more than propogandise and instead come up with evidence

Oh, the irony.

As for the numerous people who automatically come up with words like 'moron' or 'idiot' whenever anyone dares to question Darwinianism, can I humbly suggest that you are not providing a convincing case either. In fact your language and behaviour is much more reminiscent of the fundamentalist who thinks it heresy to have their beliefs questioned, than it does of the scientific approach

Ain't no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist.

2368. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #186524 by Quetzalcoatl on May 30, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Shmeezers-

You're a dumbass. They have never proven that life can have evolved from non-life. You wrote, "could have eventually lead to..." Right. That's the whole theory of Darwinism in a nutshell. Could have... And then the Darwinists argue that, since they are putting forth a possible empirical theory, and ID theorists are not, theirs is more convincing.

Once again: Darwinian evolution deals with the evolution of life, not with how it started. That is the theory of ABIOGENESIS.

2369. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #186517 by Quetzalcoatl on May 30, 2008 at 1:26 pm

D'Arcy-

Obviously establishing socialism will require a willing majority taking conscious political action in their respective countries to gain control of the machinery of government including the armed forces. In this way the socialist majority can force their will over the will of the capitalist class to keep things as they were. The state machinery is used as the agent of emancipation to dispossess the capitalists and to make the productive forces the common property of all humanity regardless of race or sex.

So essentially there will be a central authority. You talk about the "socialist majority" taking political action and gaining control over the state machinery. This would be an enormously complicated process, with immense bureaucracy involved. For the "socialist majority" to act in a coordinated manner in the first place would require a leadership structure, a group deciding what happens when.

To use the state machinery to change things would again require coordination. The socialist leadership would, using the state machinery, essentially become the state, the central authority.

Once that has happened, we still end up with the same problems, ie a relatively small group in control of immense resources, including the armed forces. They will have the power. How willing will they be to relinquish it? What will the "socialist majority" do if the central authority decides it wants to stay in charge, that the new world order does not fit with their grand ideals, and that only they have the vision to implement "true" socialism?

2370. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #186511 by Quetzalcoatl on May 30, 2008 at 1:09 pm

D'Arcy-

ha! Your crystal ball has failed!

Now to actually read your post...

2371. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #186493 by Quetzalcoatl on May 30, 2008 at 11:09 am

Oh, hi, Artful. Is the discussion on dualism over now?

2372. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #186295 by Quetzalcoatl on May 30, 2008 at 4:45 am

SJK-

There are other options. True, they aren't as sexy as blowing stuff up and "building societies from the ground up", as if we even know how to do that, but they work.

I haven't read enough of this thread to have an opinion one way or the other, but I'm just curious: what do you think the other options are?

2373. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186284 by Quetzalcoatl on May 30, 2008 at 4:09 am

mmurray-

Electrical Hypersensitivity.
Hypochondria.
Stupidity.

Any difference?

2374. Flea of the week

Comment #186271 by Quetzalcoatl on May 30, 2008 at 3:18 am

Vaal-

some people are morons.

2375. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186265 by Quetzalcoatl on May 30, 2008 at 3:10 am

DrBenway-

the problem is that "Step 1: God did it" does not really qualify as a sequence.

2376. Flea of the week

Comment #186263 by Quetzalcoatl on May 30, 2008 at 3:06 am

Epeeist-

with Caplin was there not the suggestion that it was more her influencing Cherie who then influenced Blair, rather than her conning him directly?

2377. Flea of the week

Comment #186257 by Quetzalcoatl on May 30, 2008 at 2:52 am

Before anyone says it- Elvis is very much dead.

2378. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #186081 by Quetzalcoatl on May 29, 2008 at 1:45 pm

D'Arcy-

there are a fair few questions for you, some from me, most from others.

2379. What is science for?

Comment #185581 by Quetzalcoatl on May 28, 2008 at 5:58 am

ASMarques-

I'm sincerely sorry about that and I'm out.

Bye.

You'll be back, probably within a few days. Peddling anti-Holocaust drivel is your obsession.

2380. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #185288 by Quetzalcoatl on May 27, 2008 at 11:23 am

MaxD-

Off topic,
Tecumotzin is helping Hercules fight of a Skrull invasion. Why aren't you helping out? This seems rather cowardly of you.

Well excuse me! I've been a little busy fighting off Galactus, the Devourer of Worlds. Don't worry, I'm currently aboard a dreadnought crewed by an army of my finest mutant hybrids. We'll arrive shortly.

2381. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #185176 by Quetzalcoatl on May 27, 2008 at 6:31 am

Lastgreekstanding-

you sure went to a lot of effort with that post, didn't you. Just in case you're not aware: it's not actually illegal for someone to change their mind.

2382. Repulsive but right

Comment #184743 by Quetzalcoatl on May 26, 2008 at 5:14 am

Corylus-

agreed, but I think the author is claiming the first point.

2383. What is science for?

Comment #184225 by Quetzalcoatl on May 24, 2008 at 2:54 am

ASMarques-

I will first let you catch the flavour of Wiki-obfuscation by commenting on a few ridiculous bits within the link from the Quetzalcoatl guy that you mention, in connection, by the way, with the "references" sent by the Teratornis guy (why is it that so many of these insecure self-proclaimed "most intelligent and erudite individuals to be found on the Web" like to wear plumage on their tails, I wonder).

Witty. Since you're so good at providing links and quotes, perhaps you would like to direct everyone to the precise comment where I described myself as one of the "most intelligent and erudite individuals to be found on the Web". If you can't, I must conclude that you are talking out of your arse.

2384. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184076 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Al-Rawandi-

Try this.

2385. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184068 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Al-rawandi-

what I did was paste the link directly into the post, then submit it. Then I went into edit. When you do that you see the link with the URL reference stuff around it. From there you can just change the name part. The Comment Posting Guidelines explain it better than I can!

2386. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184066 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Corylus-

I intended to spell it that way before I did it, but I forgot! I will improve in the future, promise. Did you follow the link within my blog post?

2387. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184058 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Corylus-

the good thing about Wikipedia is that quite often its articles reference where they got their information from, allowing you to read those sources for more detail.

If you want something to cheer you up, try this.

2388. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184057 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Don't mention logic, or, should I say, LOGIC. We do not want to summon the gibbering imbecile.

2389. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184052 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Bonzai-

I am expecting Taratonis to show up any time now with a fiction length post to laud the greatness of Wikipedia. Afterall this is his second passion.

Don't mention P.O. He can hear people typing the phrase.

2390. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184047 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Al-

if you're a hypocrite, so am I and practically everybody else on this site!

I think lastgreekstanding is counting on the fact that not everyone is familiar with the context of your discussions. But many of us are. I notice that he emphatically did not link from the thread in which you were actually discussing Chomsky with _riverrun_ and Windweaver. I wonder why that was?

I suppose you should be flattered. It probably took him a while to trawl through your comments until he found one to quote out of context!

2391. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184029 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Lastgreekstanding-

Who the fuck cites Wikipedia? You don't do that. It's not an authorative source!

I link to Wikipedia quite often. It's very useful.

2392. Five Things Humans No Longer Need

Comment #184014 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Stella-

Proof that I am highly evolved:

I have no wisdom teeth.

Show-off. :(

2393. Five Things Humans No Longer Need

Comment #184011 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 11:58 am

Steveroot-

"painless dentistry" is a good oxymoron.

2394. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183973 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 10:41 am

masterslrig-

what a pointless and patronising comment.

2395. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183929 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 7:58 am

hungarianelephant-

like I said, I was being vague!

2396. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183923 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 7:48 am

Bonzai-

I think a reverse question can be asked of you, do you think there is anything which should not become private property?

I'll be honest with you and say that I'm not sure of the answer to that. I'll have to think about it.

Being very vague, I suppose one example might be that I wouldn't like to see the healthcare system becoming fully privatised. Reason being, obviously, that provision of healthcare to those that need it but cannot afford to pay for it would be restricted.

I'll give it some thought.

2397. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183905 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 6:38 am

Re the point about property, D'Arcy said:

As the means of living will be commonly owned by everyone to be used for the common good, much like the atmosphere today, there won't be any private property in the means of living

But what is "private property?" Do you have personal possessions? What is yours and what is state-owned?

2398. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183857 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 3:35 am

Phil Rimmer-

good post. A socialist world would inevitably require a state or central authority to govern it, despite what D'Arcy might say. Nothing would get done otherwise.

2399. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183835 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 1:44 am

D'Arcy-

I am not trying to dodge, I'm just glad that you're thinking about it. By "central authority" I take it you mean a state of some kind. The state is the representative of the ruling class, whether it be in chattel slavery, (ancient Greece and Rome), feudalism, ( Europe up till the beginnings of capitalism around 1700), or emergent capitalism proper from then till now. As Marx said in 1847, the state is the executive committee of the ruling class, and it's a view I agree with. The state as an institution is only required where private property interests are concerned. For further information you could read Lewis Henry Morgan's "Ancient Society", an American who lived among the Iroquois Indians and certainly not a socialist. Engels, certainly a socialist, also paid tribute to Morgan and expanded on his ideas in his "Origin of the State, Private Property and the Family".

This doesn't really answer my question at all. You assume that by "central authority" I mean "the state". But in the past you have talked about socialism only being truly attainable if it is implemented worldwide. It would be unreasonable to call the central authority for that transition "the state", since the inevitable question would be "which state"?

To be brief, once socialism has been decided as an objective and has been consciously brought into being by the majority of the world's population, workers, using the available political apparatus, then the need for the state as the agent for private property owners will disappear. If you think I'm talking nonsense, just think back to the last strike by workers which the government was in favour of.

Sigh. My point was that the only way socialism could be brought into being would be via a central authority or, as you word it, "the available politicial apparatus". Implementing it would, as I have said several times now, require massive bureaucracy and centralised control. Frankly, it's a little naive to think that a transition from a capitalistic to socialistic society could be achieved without it.

You seem to have ignored another of my points. Once again: implementation of socialist ideals would require the central authority to have a great deal of power and control. Human nature being what it is, why would they give that up? How would "the people" be able to make them, as the central authority would control the police and armed forces? Russia is a excellent example. What could the Russian people have done to remove Stalin from power? Sod all.

The state as an institution is only required where private property interests are concerned

I completely disagree with this. The state also has a hand in education, health care, social security, administration, utilities. With all private property interests gone, there would have to be some kind of authority that people could apply to for the roads to be repaired, or for support. Thus it's hard to see how the state/central authority would disappear.

And you haven't addressed the points in the rest of my comment: here they are again.

I will repeat it so that the straw man societies of North Korea, Cuba, Russia, China etc, which are all capitalist, are not used as arguments against the idea of socialism.

Socialism: a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of living by, and in the interests of the whole community.

Another dodge. If all those countries say they're socialist or communist, why should we not agree with that?

IF socialism is ever established it will be brought into being by a willing population, not forced from above

How else would socialism be established in a capitalistic society without the regulation of a central authority? If you think there is a better way, by all means enlighten us.

1) How are resources allocated?

By democratic control to where they are needed

Flawed. How are people supposed to know where things are needed? How are the needy to inform a large group of their need without registering it to a central authority?

2) How are people prevented from starting private sytems of finance.

As the means of living will be commonly owned by everyone to be used for the common good, much like the atmosphere today, there won't be any private property in the means of living.

Extremely interesting. What about homes and personal possessions? Pictures of loved ones?

4) How do you prevent abuses of minority groups and parties?

As all individuals in a socialist society will have equal social standing and equal rights, all will have the same opportunity to express their point of view. The majority voice must always be the deciding one.

So in other words, minority groups would be stuffed. And if a majority of people voted that a minority group (for example "the gays" or "immigrants") were to be persecuted, who would protect them?

And finally, D'Arcy, Al's definition of socialism isn't particularly important. Nor is mine, Hungarian Elephant's, or anyone else on the thread. The reason for that is that you are the one making the assertions about socialism. We are merely pointing out the flaws. The question is, can you show where we are going wrong?

I'm waiting.

2400. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183704 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 2:29 pm

D'Arcy-

First of all, IF socialism is ever established it will require the conscious and democratic majority to vote for it and sort out its particular organisation. It's not for me to give you a blue print

This is a dodge. You must have some idea about how it would be implemented. This relates to my point back in comment 511 that such implementation would inevitably require massive bureaucracy and centralised control, since there would have to be a central point that regulates the other points across the globe. As I have said before, and have as yet received no answer: with human nature being what it is, what makes you so convinced that such a central authority would relinquish its grip on power, or indeed that it could be removed by "the will of the people" given that it would control the police and armed forces.

I will repeat it so that the straw man societies of North Korea, Cuba, Russia, China etc, which are all capitalist, are not used as arguments against the idea of socialism.

Socialism: a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of living by, and in the interests of the whole community.

Another dodge. If all those countries say they're socialist or communist, why should we not agree with that?

IF socialism is ever established it will be brought into being by a willing population, not forced from above

How else would socialism be established in a capitalistic society without the regulation of a central authority? If you think there is a better way, by all means enlighten us.

1) How are resources allocated?

By democratic control to where they are needed

Flawed. How are people supposed to know where things are needed? How are the needy to inform a large group of their need without registering it to a central authority?

2) How are people prevented from starting private sytems of finance.

As the means of living will be commonly owned by everyone to be used for the common good, much like the atmosphere today, there won't be any private property in the means of living.

Extremely interesting. What about homes and personal possessions? Pictures of loved ones?

4) How do you prevent abuses of minority groups and parties?

As all individuals in a socialist society will have equal social standing and equal rights, all will have the same opportunity to express their point of view. The majority voice must always be the deciding one.

So in other words, minority groups would be stuffed. And if a majority of people voted that a minority group (for example "the gays" or "immigrants") were to be persecuted, who would protect them?

And finally, D'Arcy, Al's definition of socialism isn't particularly important. Nor is mine, Hungarian Elephant's, or anyone else on the thread. The reason for that is that you are the one making the assertions about socialism. We are merely pointing out the flaws. The question is, can you show where we are going wrong?

I'm waiting.