The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Morality of Abortion or Aborting Morality?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Though the GSS has asked about the desired legality of abortion since the survey’s inception, it explicitly asked about the perceived morality of the practice for the first time in 2018. The following graph shows the two-way distribution–morally opposed or not–of responses across a host of demographic characteristics:

“It depends” responses are excluded. This likely has the effect of making overall moral sentiment appear more pro-choice than it actually is, since a lot of these respondents presumably have in mind moral exceptions for rarities such as rape and incest but who generally otherwise find it morally objectionable.

Overall, 51.6% of respondents express moral opposition while 48.4% do not.

One aspect of the abortion debate that is virtually never mentioned by the corporate media because of how obviously problematic it is for the preferred narrative is that men are modestly more pro-choice than women.

Among white Democrats, abortion is overwhelmingly viewed as a mere medical procedure. Non-white Democrats, in contrast are split evenly on the question. If a vociferous POC pro-life caucus ever emerges on the left, will pussyhat-wearing Beckies yield to their more intersectional cohorts?

Having children, being Republican, and believing in God are all strong predictors of moral opposition to abortion.

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), SEX, ABMORAL(1-2), GOD(1)(2)(3-5)(6), PARTYID(0-1)(2-4,7)(5-6), CHILDS(0)(1)(2-8), SEXORNT(1-2)(3), WORDSUM(0-4)(5-7)(8-10), BORN(1)

 
Hide 256 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. And just like that, another abortion article. Are you trying to make Rosie froth at the mouth?

    In case yo don’t get what I mean: http://www.unz.com/anepigone/google-must-do-more-to-fight-extremism/#comment-3262236

    • Replies: @SFG
    Hey, I could always show up and start talking about divorce and losing half your assets again.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Ha, my interests are in novel data. Mileage will vary.
  2. Audacious Epigone:

    Was the religion of those queried, especially Jews?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The sample size is really small--only 38 Jews--but 41% said they're morally opposed. That's a surprisingly high figure, but that's what the GSS shows.
  3. anonymous[523] • Disclaimer says:

    Go to El Salvador.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_El_Salvador

    Abortion in El Salvador is illegal. The law formerly permitted an abortion to be performed under some limited circumstances, but, in 1998, all exceptions were removed when a new abortion law went into effect.

  4. @Twinkie
    And just like that, another abortion article. Are you trying to make Rosie froth at the mouth?

    In case yo don’t get what I mean: http://www.unz.com/anepigone/google-must-do-more-to-fight-extremism/#comment-3262236

    Hey, I could always show up and start talking about divorce and losing half your assets again.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Hey, I could always show up and start talking about divorce and losing half your assets again.
     
    Noone loses half their assets in a divorce. If a judge makes an award to someone in a marital dispute, it is precisely because the judge has determined that the assets are marital assets, i.e. owned jointly. This notion that men lose half their assets in a divorce is a denial of the validity of the institution of marriage itself, with the implication of partnership and shared fortune.
  5. @SFG
    Hey, I could always show up and start talking about divorce and losing half your assets again.

    Hey, I could always show up and start talking about divorce and losing half your assets again.

    Noone loses half their assets in a divorce. If a judge makes an award to someone in a marital dispute, it is precisely because the judge has determined that the assets are marital assets, i.e. owned jointly. This notion that men lose half their assets in a divorce is a denial of the validity of the institution of marriage itself, with the implication of partnership and shared fortune.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    After agreeing with your other comment, I have to take exception to this one. Plenty of people lose more than half, even more than 100% of their assets in divorce.

    "implication of partnership and shared fortune"
     
    I support that. Unfortunately "family" (i.e., anti-family) courts do not. The outcomes of their decisions are emphatically not shared and often vastly unequal.

    While I wish the matter were otherwise—I still harbor a residual belief in the institution of marriage—there is no denying the facts as they are, and acknowledging that it is these facts that have hobbled the institution of marriage and made it shunned by those whom we would most wish would embrace it.

    , @Anonymous
    Generally, "marital assets" are largely contributed by the husband. Furthermore, women tend to avoid marrying men who either have no assets to begin with, or few prospects of obtaining assets, while men typically don't consider such things much if it all in their prospective wives.

    It's rare for there to be genuinely jointly owned marital assets, like in a business enterprise with equal partners. And if a husband and wife do have a business in which they're equal partners, their ownership in the enterprise is going to be through a corporation or some sort of limited liability partnership in which their personal liability is limited and their property is protected.
  6. One aspect of the abortion debate that is virtually never mentioned by the corporate media because of how obviously problematic it is for the preferred narrative is that men are modestly more pro-choice than women.

    The fact is that abortion is very convenient for men.

    I would love to see data on how many women who get abortions would have made a different choice if the sperm donor actually wanted to become a husband and father. I suspect the numbers would shock left and right alike.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    No shit.

    86% of women who get an abortion are unmarried, compared to only 40% of women who give birth.

    Personally, I'd rather die than be some unwed welfare queen. My mother and father would prefer that I remain a childless spinster than have out of wedlock babies or get divorced.

    48% of women who got an abortion said their *primary* reason for getting an abortion is because they are not married. Which means that if the baby father proposed marriage, almost all of them would have backed away from abortion.

    Men: Women shouldn't have access to birth control!
    Men: Only losers marry their baby's mother! Cool guys fuck random broads and leave, even if they get pregnant! Sticking around and being a father is beta!
    Also men: Wanna f***?
    , @Almost Missouri

    "The fact is that abortion is very convenient for men."
     
    This is true, especially for a certain type of man common in New York, DC and Hollywood, and explains the sub rosa male support for abortion even though the media prefers to spin it as a "women's issue". Abortion really is a case of the Patriarchy exercising control over women's wombs—intervening mechanistically to prevent women's bodies from carrying forward the course that they have naturally chosen. That the media have spun it as the exact opposite is a testament to the power of The Megaphone. And to the gullibility of certain women. They transgress their own bodies to suck up to the Patriarchy.

    "I would love to see data on how many women who get abortions would have made a different choice if the sperm donor actually wanted to become a husband and father."
     
    What I think is especially tragic about these cases is that those were the ones who could have had the best future and therefore been the future of their people: they had a committed mother in love with the father.

    Statistics often can't help mixing different things together. In the case of abortion stats, the tragic end-of-a-family abortions are mixed in with the casual instead-of-a-condom abortions. The former often end a bloodline. The latter are quickly overtaken by even more conceptions from the endless supply. I strongly suspect, but cannot prove, that the relative proportion of those two types of abortion varies substantially by demographic group, which is a submerged reason that the subject is so divisive.

    On the right side of the cognitive curve, we may have personal experience with the former type of abortion and assume all abortion is like that, so that while the personal experience may be a kind of tragedy (a nullified family), when it becomes a policy question applied to the left side of the bell curve, we think, well at least the less desirable sort of people can be prevented from reproducing as well. What we don't realize is that the casual type of abortion does not crimp reproduction rates. If anything, it is a spur to more conception. And the left side of the bell curve excels at incontinent conception.

    , @Neuromancer

    I would love to see data on how many women who get abortions would have made a different choice if the sperm donor actually wanted to become a husband and father.
     
    Maybe this should have been worked out before the lady spread her legs.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    That seems plausible to me. Is there extant data on male support or lack thereof? A quick search doesn't immediately reveal anything obvious, but I'll do some digging.
    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    One reality is that people hop into the sack before there is a firm relationship. I knew couples who married when she got pregnant, but there was a long-term relationship. I think that a man is more likely to do the right thing and marry a girl he's been dating for a year versus someone he's been dating for a month.


    Steven S. pointed out that abortion killed off the idea of the shotgun marriage. A girl gets pregnant and the guy says, "get rid of it." Abortion solves the problem is helps create.


    The Right-to-Life movement also sanctions the idea that an acceptable way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy is for the woman to have the baby and go on welfare. The movement legitimizes illegitimacy and welfare dependency, weakening the sense of obligation that a man might feel towards the woman and baby.

    I'm old-fashioned because I think that children do best when mom and dad are married to each. Also, as a taxpayer, I don't want to be forced to subsidize the consequences of other people's self-indulgence. The Republican Party and conservatives in general no longer hold the traditional view about responsibility for your own actions. As we said in the 1980s, a need on your part doesn't constitute an obligation on my part. But I'm just old-fashioned.
  7. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    One aspect of the abortion debate that is virtually never mentioned by the corporate media because of how obviously problematic it is for the preferred narrative is that men are modestly more pro-choice than women.
     
    The fact is that abortion is very convenient for men.

    I would love to see data on how many women who get abortions would have made a different choice if the sperm donor actually wanted to become a husband and father. I suspect the numbers would shock left and right alike.

    No shit.

    86% of women who get an abortion are unmarried, compared to only 40% of women who give birth.

    Personally, I’d rather die than be some unwed welfare queen. My mother and father would prefer that I remain a childless spinster than have out of wedlock babies or get divorced.

    48% of women who got an abortion said their *primary* reason for getting an abortion is because they are not married. Which means that if the baby father proposed marriage, almost all of them would have backed away from abortion.

    Men: Women shouldn’t have access to birth control!
    Men: Only losers marry their baby’s mother! Cool guys fuck random broads and leave, even if they get pregnant! Sticking around and being a father is beta!
    Also men: Wanna f***?

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "Men: Women shouldn’t have access to birth control!"
     
    Other than a few hardcore Catholics—who believe no one, man or women—should have access to birth control, plus a small subculture of the small rightwing subculture, in other words, less than 2% of the male population, I don't know any men who say this.

    "Men: Only losers marry their baby’s mother! Cool guys fuck random broads and leave, even if they get pregnant! Sticking around and being a father is beta!"
     
    I don't know any non-black men who say this. And the black men I know who do say this use different nomenclature.

    "Also men: Wanna f***?"
     
    As the holders of a cheap and plentiful biological good, men are naturally always looking for takers.

    As the holders of a scarce and expensive biological good, women are naturally hesitant and coquettish in bestowing their favors.

    Such is life.

    Civilized cultures may domesticate these facts with customs, orderly cultures may rule these facts with laws, artistic cultures may embellish these facts baroquely, but the underlying facts remain.
    , @SFG
    Men: Women shouldn’t have access to birth control!
    Men: Only losers marry their baby’s mother! Cool guys fuck random broads and leave, even if they get pregnant! Sticking around and being a father is beta!
    Also men: Wanna f***?


    That's 1) socially conservative men, 2) very irresponsible men, and...3) practically all men.
  8. @Rosie

    One aspect of the abortion debate that is virtually never mentioned by the corporate media because of how obviously problematic it is for the preferred narrative is that men are modestly more pro-choice than women.
     
    The fact is that abortion is very convenient for men.

    I would love to see data on how many women who get abortions would have made a different choice if the sperm donor actually wanted to become a husband and father. I suspect the numbers would shock left and right alike.

    “The fact is that abortion is very convenient for men.”

    This is true, especially for a certain type of man common in New York, DC and Hollywood, and explains the sub rosa male support for abortion even though the media prefers to spin it as a “women’s issue”. Abortion really is a case of the Patriarchy exercising control over women’s wombs—intervening mechanistically to prevent women’s bodies from carrying forward the course that they have naturally chosen. That the media have spun it as the exact opposite is a testament to the power of The Megaphone. And to the gullibility of certain women. They transgress their own bodies to suck up to the Patriarchy.

    “I would love to see data on how many women who get abortions would have made a different choice if the sperm donor actually wanted to become a husband and father.”

    What I think is especially tragic about these cases is that those were the ones who could have had the best future and therefore been the future of their people: they had a committed mother in love with the father.

    Statistics often can’t help mixing different things together. In the case of abortion stats, the tragic end-of-a-family abortions are mixed in with the casual instead-of-a-condom abortions. The former often end a bloodline. The latter are quickly overtaken by even more conceptions from the endless supply. I strongly suspect, but cannot prove, that the relative proportion of those two types of abortion varies substantially by demographic group, which is a submerged reason that the subject is so divisive.

    On the right side of the cognitive curve, we may have personal experience with the former type of abortion and assume all abortion is like that, so that while the personal experience may be a kind of tragedy (a nullified family), when it becomes a policy question applied to the left side of the bell curve, we think, well at least the less desirable sort of people can be prevented from reproducing as well. What we don’t realize is that the casual type of abortion does not crimp reproduction rates. If anything, it is a spur to more conception. And the left side of the bell curve excels at incontinent conception.

  9. @Rosie

    Hey, I could always show up and start talking about divorce and losing half your assets again.
     
    Noone loses half their assets in a divorce. If a judge makes an award to someone in a marital dispute, it is precisely because the judge has determined that the assets are marital assets, i.e. owned jointly. This notion that men lose half their assets in a divorce is a denial of the validity of the institution of marriage itself, with the implication of partnership and shared fortune.

    After agreeing with your other comment, I have to take exception to this one. Plenty of people lose more than half, even more than 100% of their assets in divorce.

    “implication of partnership and shared fortune”

    I support that. Unfortunately “family” (i.e., anti-family) courts do not. The outcomes of their decisions are emphatically not shared and often vastly unequal.

    While I wish the matter were otherwise—I still harbor a residual belief in the institution of marriage—there is no denying the facts as they are, and acknowledging that it is these facts that have hobbled the institution of marriage and made it shunned by those whom we would most wish would embrace it.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Plenty of people lose more than half, even more than 100% of their assets in divorce.
     
    I haven't seen any evidence of this. Rather, men claim that they have lost half "their" assets when in fact all that has happened is the marital property has been divided 50-50.

    The problem is that men consider all the marital property "theirs."

    Demanding fundamental changes to the marital covenant is not "embracing marriage" and those who do so are not victims but petulant children.

  10. @Almost Missouri
    After agreeing with your other comment, I have to take exception to this one. Plenty of people lose more than half, even more than 100% of their assets in divorce.

    "implication of partnership and shared fortune"
     
    I support that. Unfortunately "family" (i.e., anti-family) courts do not. The outcomes of their decisions are emphatically not shared and often vastly unequal.

    While I wish the matter were otherwise—I still harbor a residual belief in the institution of marriage—there is no denying the facts as they are, and acknowledging that it is these facts that have hobbled the institution of marriage and made it shunned by those whom we would most wish would embrace it.

    Plenty of people lose more than half, even more than 100% of their assets in divorce.

    I haven’t seen any evidence of this. Rather, men claim that they have lost half “their” assets when in fact all that has happened is the marital property has been divided 50-50.

    The problem is that men consider all the marital property “theirs.”

    Demanding fundamental changes to the marital covenant is not “embracing marriage” and those who do so are not victims but petulant children.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    I haven’t seen any evidence of this.
     
    Seek and ye shall find.

    men claim that they have lost half “their” assets when in fact all that has happened is the marital property has been divided 50-50
     
    This is a popular but legally and financially illiterate view. In every state there are various and sundry exceptions to 50/50 distributions. Lawyers have every incentive—even obligation—to use them. Even in cases of actual 50/50 distribution, it is usually the case that one party's assets are free and clear while the other's are encumbered by a variety of debts, some old, others freshly imposed by the courts. And none of this considers the various forms of alimony/child support (the distinction is largely a legal fiction), which are never 50/50.

    Demanding fundamental changes to the marital covenant is not “embracing marriage”
     
    The "fundamental changes to the marital covenant" already occurred in the last quarter century when age old marriage laws were unilaterally rewritten with novel legal theories completely alien to civilized history. Embracing the new mockery of marriage is not "embracing marriage".
    , @Mr. Rational

    The problem is that men consider all the marital property “theirs.”
     
    The problem is that courts consider things "marital property" when they were brought into the marriage by men, or purchased with money men brought in.  Such property and funds should not be in play, full stop.

    Neither should the lifestyle of someone seeking a no-fault divorce be considered by the courts.  If lifestyle of children is to be maintained, custody should go with the party not seeking the divorce.
  11. @Rosie

    Plenty of people lose more than half, even more than 100% of their assets in divorce.
     
    I haven't seen any evidence of this. Rather, men claim that they have lost half "their" assets when in fact all that has happened is the marital property has been divided 50-50.

    The problem is that men consider all the marital property "theirs."

    Demanding fundamental changes to the marital covenant is not "embracing marriage" and those who do so are not victims but petulant children.

    I haven’t seen any evidence of this.

    Seek and ye shall find.

    men claim that they have lost half “their” assets when in fact all that has happened is the marital property has been divided 50-50

    This is a popular but legally and financially illiterate view. In every state there are various and sundry exceptions to 50/50 distributions. Lawyers have every incentive—even obligation—to use them. Even in cases of actual 50/50 distribution, it is usually the case that one party’s assets are free and clear while the other’s are encumbered by a variety of debts, some old, others freshly imposed by the courts. And none of this considers the various forms of alimony/child support (the distinction is largely a legal fiction), which are never 50/50.

    Demanding fundamental changes to the marital covenant is not “embracing marriage”

    The “fundamental changes to the marital covenant” already occurred in the last quarter century when age old marriage laws were unilaterally rewritten with novel legal theories completely alien to civilized history. Embracing the new mockery of marriage is not “embracing marriage”.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Embracing the new mockery of marriage is not “embracing marriage”.
     
    It would probably be more productive to say what you think is wrong in particular.

    Seek and ye shall find
     
    Nothing but unsubstantiated anecdotes.


    And none of this considers the various forms of alimony/child support (the distinction is largely a legal fiction), which are never 50/50.
     
    Nor should they be. The right to alimony is essential to the legal existence of a marriage. If there is no right to alimony, you are not a spouse, but rather an at-will cohabitant paramour.
  12. @Rosie

    Plenty of people lose more than half, even more than 100% of their assets in divorce.
     
    I haven't seen any evidence of this. Rather, men claim that they have lost half "their" assets when in fact all that has happened is the marital property has been divided 50-50.

    The problem is that men consider all the marital property "theirs."

    Demanding fundamental changes to the marital covenant is not "embracing marriage" and those who do so are not victims but petulant children.

    The problem is that men consider all the marital property “theirs.”

    The problem is that courts consider things “marital property” when they were brought into the marriage by men, or purchased with money men brought in.  Such property and funds should not be in play, full stop.

    Neither should the lifestyle of someone seeking a no-fault divorce be considered by the courts.  If lifestyle of children is to be maintained, custody should go with the party not seeking the divorce.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    Here you make some decent points.

    The problem is that courts consider things “marital property” when they were brought into the marriage by men, or purchased with money men brought in. Such property and funds should not be in play, full stop.
     
    I don't disagree with you as a general rule, but courts absolutely ought to have discretion too what is just in individual cases.

    Suppose you are 25 years old and you marry a man with a paid-off house. He dumps you when you're 35 and replaces you with a younger woman.

    Do you really think she isn't entitled to a share of the house? What public policy is served by allowing a man to behave this way? How does this behavior encourage women to behave? These are all things that courts take into consideration.

    I suspect you are hearing anecdotes that sound unfair, because the aggrieved "victim" isn't telling you the whole story.


    Neither should the lifestyle of someone seeking a no-fault divorce be considered by the courts. If lifestyle of children is to be maintained, custody should go with the party not seeking the divorce.
     
    Here again I agree in principle, but what if one party is not seeking divorce but is still guilty of grave marital misconduct?

    I have said elsewhere that as far as I'm concerned, if you leave for nothing , you should leave with nothing.
    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    I think that we should bring back the concept of fault when children are involved or if a woman was a long-time housewife dumped by her husband. A person might actually seek a divorce for good reason - a friend with a toddler divorced her husband for abuse and heavy drinking.
  13. @Almost Missouri

    I haven’t seen any evidence of this.
     
    Seek and ye shall find.

    men claim that they have lost half “their” assets when in fact all that has happened is the marital property has been divided 50-50
     
    This is a popular but legally and financially illiterate view. In every state there are various and sundry exceptions to 50/50 distributions. Lawyers have every incentive—even obligation—to use them. Even in cases of actual 50/50 distribution, it is usually the case that one party's assets are free and clear while the other's are encumbered by a variety of debts, some old, others freshly imposed by the courts. And none of this considers the various forms of alimony/child support (the distinction is largely a legal fiction), which are never 50/50.

    Demanding fundamental changes to the marital covenant is not “embracing marriage”
     
    The "fundamental changes to the marital covenant" already occurred in the last quarter century when age old marriage laws were unilaterally rewritten with novel legal theories completely alien to civilized history. Embracing the new mockery of marriage is not "embracing marriage".

    Embracing the new mockery of marriage is not “embracing marriage”.

    It would probably be more productive to say what you think is wrong in particular.

    Seek and ye shall find

    Nothing but unsubstantiated anecdotes.

    And none of this considers the various forms of alimony/child support (the distinction is largely a legal fiction), which are never 50/50.

    Nor should they be. The right to alimony is essential to the legal existence of a marriage. If there is no right to alimony, you are not a spouse, but rather an at-will cohabitant paramour.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "It would probably be more productive to say what you think is wrong in particular."
     
    Happily, it appears from your comment that you are already aware of this, even if you are not aware of the cause.

    "If there is no right to alimony, you are not a spouse, but rather an at-will cohabitant paramour."
     
    I agree that "at-will cohabitant paramours" is a mockery of marriage. Unfortunately, at-will cohabitant paramours is exactly what modern No-Fault* marriage law makes the marriage partners into. (Although apparently you are willing to accept this if you get a cash payout at the end. I had hoped you would consider the marriage commitment worthy of better terms.)

    *I use the popular term, "No-Fault", for modern divorce laws even though the name is a red herring. While the "no fault" aspect can be harmful, the name is distracting. The real damage to marriage is caused not by partners agreeing to dissolve their marriage. This is harmless enough, if the partners agree. But the friendly-sounding "no fault" name conceals the poison freight within. The "no fault" laws do not require both partners to consent. So in reality, so-called "no fault" laws are actually Unilateral Divorce At-Will laws. Of course, if they were honestly named "Unilateral Divorce At Will" laws, they wouldn't have gotten enacted in the first place.

    The effect of UDAW laws is that perversely, among all binding agreements people enter into over the course of their lives, the one that has the highest stakes of all—the one that entails their lives, their lives' work, their inheritances and their children—this agreement alone is not only non-binding, not only can it be abrogated by either party at any time for any reason or for no reason, but also it can be used as a weapon against you to penalize, bankrupt and encumber you, and to deprive you of your children, even though you have committed no crime and no one need accuse you of any crime. Imagine that: penalties vastly in excess of what actual felons get, for the non-crime of ... marriage under the modern legal regime.

    Incidentally, even states that do not officially have "No Fault" divorce laws, still have had subtler changes to their divorce code and courtroom practice such that they all are de facto Unilateral Divorce At Will states. This is why there is no significant difference in divorce rates between states with differently labelled legal regimes.

    These changes across different jurisdictions did not happen all by peculiar coincidence. Starting in the 1970s there was an organized campaign of radical legal theorists to rewrite the nation's law codes, which has subsequently spread to all common law countries. In the US, the marital law wing of this campaign culminated in the federal government withholding Interstate highway funds from any state that did not abide by the new legal regime, effectively making an end run around state sovereignty by a tactic of dubious, but apparently accepted, Constitutionality.

  14. @Rosie

    One aspect of the abortion debate that is virtually never mentioned by the corporate media because of how obviously problematic it is for the preferred narrative is that men are modestly more pro-choice than women.
     
    The fact is that abortion is very convenient for men.

    I would love to see data on how many women who get abortions would have made a different choice if the sperm donor actually wanted to become a husband and father. I suspect the numbers would shock left and right alike.

    I would love to see data on how many women who get abortions would have made a different choice if the sperm donor actually wanted to become a husband and father.

    Maybe this should have been worked out before the lady spread her legs.

  15. @Mr. Rational

    The problem is that men consider all the marital property “theirs.”
     
    The problem is that courts consider things "marital property" when they were brought into the marriage by men, or purchased with money men brought in.  Such property and funds should not be in play, full stop.

    Neither should the lifestyle of someone seeking a no-fault divorce be considered by the courts.  If lifestyle of children is to be maintained, custody should go with the party not seeking the divorce.

    Here you make some decent points.

    The problem is that courts consider things “marital property” when they were brought into the marriage by men, or purchased with money men brought in. Such property and funds should not be in play, full stop.

    I don’t disagree with you as a general rule, but courts absolutely ought to have discretion too what is just in individual cases.

    Suppose you are 25 years old and you marry a man with a paid-off house. He dumps you when you’re 35 and replaces you with a younger woman.

    Do you really think she isn’t entitled to a share of the house? What public policy is served by allowing a man to behave this way? How does this behavior encourage women to behave? These are all things that courts take into consideration.

    I suspect you are hearing anecdotes that sound unfair, because the aggrieved “victim” isn’t telling you the whole story.

    Neither should the lifestyle of someone seeking a no-fault divorce be considered by the courts. If lifestyle of children is to be maintained, custody should go with the party not seeking the divorce.

    Here again I agree in principle, but what if one party is not seeking divorce but is still guilty of grave marital misconduct?

    I have said elsewhere that as far as I’m concerned, if you leave for nothing , you should leave with nothing.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Suppose you are 25 years old and you marry a man with a paid-off house. He dumps you when you’re 35 and replaces you with a younger woman.

    Do you really think she isn’t entitled to a share of the house? What public policy is served by allowing a man to behave this way? How does this behavior encourage women to behave? These are all things that courts take into consideration.
     
    We have no-fault divorce. Eliminating no-fault divorce would reduce the incidence of your hypothetical.

    But most divorces are initiated by women, and most women would not like having their ability to initiate divorce restricted.

    So to satisfy both women's maximum freedom to initiate divorce and to avoid being divorced by their husbands without significant compensation, you have to preserve no-fault divorce and allow generous compensation to women via favorable shared marital assets and alimony arrangements.

    This raises the cost of marriage significantly for ordinary men, and when you raise the cost of something, you get less of it. This makes marriage a luxury good and a preserve to the smaller share of men who can afford it. It institutes a kind of informal polygamy. It would make more sense to just dispense with the charade and have formal polygamy.
    , @Mr. Rational

    courts absolutely ought to have discretion too what is just in individual cases.
     
    Except you mean "in every case", meaning "according to the prejudice of the judge... and which divorce lawyers gave him campaign contributions."

    Suppose you are 25 years old and you marry a man with a paid-off house. He dumps you when you’re 35 and replaces you with a younger woman.

    Do you really think she isn’t entitled to a share of the house?

     
    Her?  Fuck, no.  He brought it in, she contributed nothing to it, she lived in it rent-free; she deserves no part of it.  If they had children together the children have a right to live in the house, but she does not.  If women can shit-can a spouse they are tired of, men can too.  Fair's fair.

    But note, I said "someone seeking a no-fault divorce".  If there's infidelity or other abuse, the at-fault party should be at risk of losing things.  Otherwise property should not be in play, and should not be incentive to seek divorce as a means of personal enrichment.

    Take away the economic incentives (and means to pay the lawyers), and there will be a lot less divorce.
  16. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Hey, I could always show up and start talking about divorce and losing half your assets again.
     
    Noone loses half their assets in a divorce. If a judge makes an award to someone in a marital dispute, it is precisely because the judge has determined that the assets are marital assets, i.e. owned jointly. This notion that men lose half their assets in a divorce is a denial of the validity of the institution of marriage itself, with the implication of partnership and shared fortune.

    Generally, “marital assets” are largely contributed by the husband. Furthermore, women tend to avoid marrying men who either have no assets to begin with, or few prospects of obtaining assets, while men typically don’t consider such things much if it all in their prospective wives.

    It’s rare for there to be genuinely jointly owned marital assets, like in a business enterprise with equal partners. And if a husband and wife do have a business in which they’re equal partners, their ownership in the enterprise is going to be through a corporation or some sort of limited liability partnership in which their personal liability is limited and their property is protected.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Generally, “marital assets” are largely contributed by the husband.
     
    And here we come to the upshot of your claims on the other thread that men deserve all the credit for civilization. You want us totally powerless and dispossessed, like slaves.
  17. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie
    Here you make some decent points.

    The problem is that courts consider things “marital property” when they were brought into the marriage by men, or purchased with money men brought in. Such property and funds should not be in play, full stop.
     
    I don't disagree with you as a general rule, but courts absolutely ought to have discretion too what is just in individual cases.

    Suppose you are 25 years old and you marry a man with a paid-off house. He dumps you when you're 35 and replaces you with a younger woman.

    Do you really think she isn't entitled to a share of the house? What public policy is served by allowing a man to behave this way? How does this behavior encourage women to behave? These are all things that courts take into consideration.

    I suspect you are hearing anecdotes that sound unfair, because the aggrieved "victim" isn't telling you the whole story.


    Neither should the lifestyle of someone seeking a no-fault divorce be considered by the courts. If lifestyle of children is to be maintained, custody should go with the party not seeking the divorce.
     
    Here again I agree in principle, but what if one party is not seeking divorce but is still guilty of grave marital misconduct?

    I have said elsewhere that as far as I'm concerned, if you leave for nothing , you should leave with nothing.

    Suppose you are 25 years old and you marry a man with a paid-off house. He dumps you when you’re 35 and replaces you with a younger woman.

    Do you really think she isn’t entitled to a share of the house? What public policy is served by allowing a man to behave this way? How does this behavior encourage women to behave? These are all things that courts take into consideration.

    We have no-fault divorce. Eliminating no-fault divorce would reduce the incidence of your hypothetical.

    But most divorces are initiated by women, and most women would not like having their ability to initiate divorce restricted.

    So to satisfy both women’s maximum freedom to initiate divorce and to avoid being divorced by their husbands without significant compensation, you have to preserve no-fault divorce and allow generous compensation to women via favorable shared marital assets and alimony arrangements.

    This raises the cost of marriage significantly for ordinary men, and when you raise the cost of something, you get less of it. This makes marriage a luxury good and a preserve to the smaller share of men who can afford it. It institutes a kind of informal polygamy. It would make more sense to just dispense with the charade and have formal polygamy.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Rosie

    This raises the cost of marriage significantly for ordinary men, and when you raise the cost of something, you get less of it.
     
    I find myself caring less and less about these cowards and their interests.

    We have no-fault divorce. Eliminating no-fault divorce would reduce the incidence of your hypothetical.

    But most divorces are initiated by women, and most women would not like having their ability to initiate divorce restricted.
     
    Your usual obfuscation. The fact that most divorces are initiated by women in no way implies that women want no-fault divorce. You are assuming women who initiate divorce are doing so without cause.

    You have no idea what most women would want. We don't like no-fault divorce. Indeed, the President of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women, in an admirable departure from the usual practice within organized feminism of doing the opposite of what is good for women, actually opposed the recent switch to no-fault divorce.

    https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/blogs/vote-up/2010/06/15/no-fault-divorce-issue-causes-rift-in-ny-national-organization-for-women/2169767/
  18. @Twinkie
    And just like that, another abortion article. Are you trying to make Rosie froth at the mouth?

    In case yo don’t get what I mean: http://www.unz.com/anepigone/google-must-do-more-to-fight-extremism/#comment-3262236

    Ha, my interests are in novel data. Mileage will vary.

  19. @Rosie

    One aspect of the abortion debate that is virtually never mentioned by the corporate media because of how obviously problematic it is for the preferred narrative is that men are modestly more pro-choice than women.
     
    The fact is that abortion is very convenient for men.

    I would love to see data on how many women who get abortions would have made a different choice if the sperm donor actually wanted to become a husband and father. I suspect the numbers would shock left and right alike.

    That seems plausible to me. Is there extant data on male support or lack thereof? A quick search doesn’t immediately reveal anything obvious, but I’ll do some digging.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    A quick search doesn’t immediately reveal anything obvious, but I’ll do some digging.
     
    Thanks. I've done some poking around the internet, too, and found nothing.
  20. will pussyhat-wearing Beckies

    Good grief, AE, Beckys don’t wear pussyhats.

  21. @Rosie

    One aspect of the abortion debate that is virtually never mentioned by the corporate media because of how obviously problematic it is for the preferred narrative is that men are modestly more pro-choice than women.
     
    The fact is that abortion is very convenient for men.

    I would love to see data on how many women who get abortions would have made a different choice if the sperm donor actually wanted to become a husband and father. I suspect the numbers would shock left and right alike.

    One reality is that people hop into the sack before there is a firm relationship. I knew couples who married when she got pregnant, but there was a long-term relationship. I think that a man is more likely to do the right thing and marry a girl he’s been dating for a year versus someone he’s been dating for a month.

    Steven S. pointed out that abortion killed off the idea of the shotgun marriage. A girl gets pregnant and the guy says, “get rid of it.” Abortion solves the problem is helps create.

    The Right-to-Life movement also sanctions the idea that an acceptable way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy is for the woman to have the baby and go on welfare. The movement legitimizes illegitimacy and welfare dependency, weakening the sense of obligation that a man might feel towards the woman and baby.

    I’m old-fashioned because I think that children do best when mom and dad are married to each. Also, as a taxpayer, I don’t want to be forced to subsidize the consequences of other people’s self-indulgence. The Republican Party and conservatives in general no longer hold the traditional view about responsibility for your own actions. As we said in the 1980s, a need on your part doesn’t constitute an obligation on my part. But I’m just old-fashioned.

    • Agree: Jay Fink
  22. @Mr. Rational

    The problem is that men consider all the marital property “theirs.”
     
    The problem is that courts consider things "marital property" when they were brought into the marriage by men, or purchased with money men brought in.  Such property and funds should not be in play, full stop.

    Neither should the lifestyle of someone seeking a no-fault divorce be considered by the courts.  If lifestyle of children is to be maintained, custody should go with the party not seeking the divorce.

    I think that we should bring back the concept of fault when children are involved or if a woman was a long-time housewife dumped by her husband. A person might actually seek a divorce for good reason – a friend with a toddler divorced her husband for abuse and heavy drinking.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I think that we should bring back the concept of fault when children are involved or if a woman was a long-time housewife dumped by her husband. A person might actually seek a divorce for good reason – a friend with a toddler divorced her husband for abuse and heavy drinking.
     
    I very much agree with you that NFD has been terrible, and I certainly support getting rid of it, though I'm not sure how much it would help. States who didn't adopt NFD were seeing divorce rates rise at the same rate as no-fault states, because there is almost always marital misconduct by one or both spouses even in nominally no-fault divorces.

    I will say this, though. At a bare minimum, it would provide us with useful sociological information that might help reduce divorce. As it stands now, we have little information as to why people are getting divorced.
  23. Given that this thread has been almost entirely hijacked by a discussion about divorce and alimony, I thought I should bring it back on topic.

    As an atheist I have a clear cut moral standpoint, which is that a foetus (proper spelling) starts off as a bundle of undifferentiated cells (not a person) but ends up as a person. Essentially, early stage abortions are not a moral issue as far as I am concerned but late stage abortions definitely are. So where should the line be drawn? As I am not God (particularly as there is no such animal anyway) I am modest enough to admit that that is NOT my call but my own attitude is that some sort of line should be drawn. I fully agree that any determination of where that line should be drawn is liable to be somewhat arbitrary but that is just a fact of life. I reject utterly the line of argument that conflates potential with actuality, that line leads to complete insanity (every sperm is sacred etc)

    I find it somewhat curious that the same people who complain about the rewarding of womb productivity (not without justification in my opinion) should be amongst those complaining when pregnancies are not brought to term, I would have thought they would approve.

    To sum up, I do not believe it is my right (nor anybody else’s) to compel a woman to have a child she does not want, though I do believe that society has a right to demand that termination is done in a timely fashion if it is to be done at all. I do not believe that what the world needs right now is more babies brought up by irresponsible mothers who didn’t want them in the first place and likely to grow up with the same bad attitudes that their parents had.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Excellent, no superior, comment.
    , @Rosie

    I find it somewhat curious that the same people who complain about the rewarding of womb productivity (not without justification in my opinion)
     
    Excellent comment, but given that civilization depends on womb productivity, what would anyone object to it? I understand objections to dysgenic fertility, but that would seem to be a different matter.
    , @SFG
    I made a gag in response to Twinkie, I hadn't expected it to take off the way it did.

    Yeah, I'm not religious and I'm very wishy-washy on abortion. Most Americans feel the way you do--it should be legal with some restrictions, often by fetal age.
    , @Almost Missouri

    "As an atheist I have a clear cut moral standpoint"
     
    Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
    , @Almost Missouri
    https://youtu.be/ccNcnQc7IIY?t=138
    , @Mr. Rational

    I do believe that society has a right to demand that termination is done in a timely fashion if it is to be done at all.
     
    "Timely" depends on who knew what and when they knew it.  When do you get to make the decision about a foetus with Down's or neural tube defects, or the product of a conception by a rapist rather than the husband when timing couldn't otherwise distinguish?

    I do not believe that what the world needs right now is more babies brought up by irresponsible mothers who didn’t want them in the first place
     
    Or irresponsible mothers who only demand that "someone gotta pay"?  Mandatory abortion for all of those, and make it retroactive!
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    "I find it somewhat curious that the same people who complain about the rewarding of womb productivity (not without justification in my opinion) should be amongst those complaining when pregnancies are not brought to term, I would have thought they would approve."

    I'm not really sure why you would find it curious; you're conflating two separate issues.

    Just like the people who make the argument that it is hypocritical to oppose abortion but support the death penalty. (FD: I am against both but for different reasons because they are different issues.) That contention is built upon the faulty premise that all killing is the same regardless of context. It isn't all the same, and anyone who says killing an unborn fetus is no different morally than executing a convicted murderer is either a liar or a fool.

    So those of us complaining about "the rewarding of womb productivity" do so because, in the most simple of terms, rewarding poor behavior gives us more poor behavior. We actually realize it's not the unborn child's fault that its parents are stupid, which is why "we" don't approve of killing it after the fact. We also realize that shutting off the gibs will likely change the behavior of at least some sexually reckless individuals, thus resulting in less abortions to follow.
    , @Intelligent Dasein

    I reject utterly the line of argument that conflates potential with actuality, that line leads to complete insanity (every sperm is sacred etc)
     
    So, in other words, you're full of crap. A spermatozoon has absolutely no potential to become a human being. In the Catholic religion, which is as 100% pro-life as you can get, not only are nocturnal emissions not considered mass murder, they're not even considered sinful.

    But if you cannot understand the simple and logical necessity that God exists, then I do not expect you to understand the difference between haploids and diploids, still less that between potency and act.
  24. @MarkU
    Given that this thread has been almost entirely hijacked by a discussion about divorce and alimony, I thought I should bring it back on topic.

    As an atheist I have a clear cut moral standpoint, which is that a foetus (proper spelling) starts off as a bundle of undifferentiated cells (not a person) but ends up as a person. Essentially, early stage abortions are not a moral issue as far as I am concerned but late stage abortions definitely are. So where should the line be drawn? As I am not God (particularly as there is no such animal anyway) I am modest enough to admit that that is NOT my call but my own attitude is that some sort of line should be drawn. I fully agree that any determination of where that line should be drawn is liable to be somewhat arbitrary but that is just a fact of life. I reject utterly the line of argument that conflates potential with actuality, that line leads to complete insanity (every sperm is sacred etc)

    I find it somewhat curious that the same people who complain about the rewarding of womb productivity (not without justification in my opinion) should be amongst those complaining when pregnancies are not brought to term, I would have thought they would approve.

    To sum up, I do not believe it is my right (nor anybody else's) to compel a woman to have a child she does not want, though I do believe that society has a right to demand that termination is done in a timely fashion if it is to be done at all. I do not believe that what the world needs right now is more babies brought up by irresponsible mothers who didn't want them in the first place and likely to grow up with the same bad attitudes that their parents had.

    Excellent, no superior, comment.

  25. @Anonymous
    Generally, "marital assets" are largely contributed by the husband. Furthermore, women tend to avoid marrying men who either have no assets to begin with, or few prospects of obtaining assets, while men typically don't consider such things much if it all in their prospective wives.

    It's rare for there to be genuinely jointly owned marital assets, like in a business enterprise with equal partners. And if a husband and wife do have a business in which they're equal partners, their ownership in the enterprise is going to be through a corporation or some sort of limited liability partnership in which their personal liability is limited and their property is protected.

    Generally, “marital assets” are largely contributed by the husband.

    And here we come to the upshot of your claims on the other thread that men deserve all the credit for civilization. You want us totally powerless and dispossessed, like slaves.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That's a non sequitur. How do you leap from the simple fact that husbands tend to contribute most of the household assets to female slavery?
  26. @Anonymous

    Suppose you are 25 years old and you marry a man with a paid-off house. He dumps you when you’re 35 and replaces you with a younger woman.

    Do you really think she isn’t entitled to a share of the house? What public policy is served by allowing a man to behave this way? How does this behavior encourage women to behave? These are all things that courts take into consideration.
     
    We have no-fault divorce. Eliminating no-fault divorce would reduce the incidence of your hypothetical.

    But most divorces are initiated by women, and most women would not like having their ability to initiate divorce restricted.

    So to satisfy both women's maximum freedom to initiate divorce and to avoid being divorced by their husbands without significant compensation, you have to preserve no-fault divorce and allow generous compensation to women via favorable shared marital assets and alimony arrangements.

    This raises the cost of marriage significantly for ordinary men, and when you raise the cost of something, you get less of it. This makes marriage a luxury good and a preserve to the smaller share of men who can afford it. It institutes a kind of informal polygamy. It would make more sense to just dispense with the charade and have formal polygamy.

    This raises the cost of marriage significantly for ordinary men, and when you raise the cost of something, you get less of it.

    I find myself caring less and less about these cowards and their interests.

    We have no-fault divorce. Eliminating no-fault divorce would reduce the incidence of your hypothetical.

    But most divorces are initiated by women, and most women would not like having their ability to initiate divorce restricted.

    Your usual obfuscation. The fact that most divorces are initiated by women in no way implies that women want no-fault divorce. You are assuming women who initiate divorce are doing so without cause.

    You have no idea what most women would want. We don’t like no-fault divorce. Indeed, the President of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women, in an admirable departure from the usual practice within organized feminism of doing the opposite of what is good for women, actually opposed the recent switch to no-fault divorce.

    https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/blogs/vote-up/2010/06/15/no-fault-divorce-issue-causes-rift-in-ny-national-organization-for-women/2169767/

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I find myself caring less and less about these cowards and their interests.
     
    And here I mean men who shun marriage because of some ridiculous notion that courts are "biased" against them, not all men.
    , @Anonymous

    I find myself caring less and less about these cowards and their interests.
     
    You shouldn't be too dissatisfied with the status quo then. Marriage rates are at record lows. A minority of wealthier and high status men enjoy serial marriages and relationships, and the women who marry them seem to be satisfied and certainly don't suffer materially when they get divorced. And ordinary women now have many employment and career opportunities so they don't have to shack up with regular Joes out of necessity or tradition.

    Your usual obfuscation. The fact that most divorces are initiated by women in no way implies that women want no-fault divorce. You are assuming women who initiate divorce are doing so without cause.
     
    Most divorces are no-fault divorces. In fact, most states no longer even recognize fault divorces. A no-fault divorce is not a divorce without "cause". The typical "cause" for no-fault divorce is "irreconcilable differences" or an "irreparable breakdown of the marriage." Before no-fault divorces, when you only had fault divorces, a spouse had to prove serious fault such as adultery in a court of law in order to be granted a divorce.

    California went no-fault 50 years or so ago, and most of the country, including New York now, is no-fault or effectively no-fault. That New York state NOW president was not very representative.

    I think most women want no-fault, or a fault divorce system that is effectively no-fault. I don't think they want a serious fault divorce system in which a wife has to prove a serious fault or crime to some hardass judge.
  27. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Generally, “marital assets” are largely contributed by the husband.
     
    And here we come to the upshot of your claims on the other thread that men deserve all the credit for civilization. You want us totally powerless and dispossessed, like slaves.

    That’s a non sequitur. How do you leap from the simple fact that husbands tend to contribute most of the household assets to female slavery?

  28. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    I think that we should bring back the concept of fault when children are involved or if a woman was a long-time housewife dumped by her husband. A person might actually seek a divorce for good reason - a friend with a toddler divorced her husband for abuse and heavy drinking.

    I think that we should bring back the concept of fault when children are involved or if a woman was a long-time housewife dumped by her husband. A person might actually seek a divorce for good reason – a friend with a toddler divorced her husband for abuse and heavy drinking.

    I very much agree with you that NFD has been terrible, and I certainly support getting rid of it, though I’m not sure how much it would help. States who didn’t adopt NFD were seeing divorce rates rise at the same rate as no-fault states, because there is almost always marital misconduct by one or both spouses even in nominally no-fault divorces.

    I will say this, though. At a bare minimum, it would provide us with useful sociological information that might help reduce divorce. As it stands now, we have little information as to why people are getting divorced.

  29. @MarkU
    Given that this thread has been almost entirely hijacked by a discussion about divorce and alimony, I thought I should bring it back on topic.

    As an atheist I have a clear cut moral standpoint, which is that a foetus (proper spelling) starts off as a bundle of undifferentiated cells (not a person) but ends up as a person. Essentially, early stage abortions are not a moral issue as far as I am concerned but late stage abortions definitely are. So where should the line be drawn? As I am not God (particularly as there is no such animal anyway) I am modest enough to admit that that is NOT my call but my own attitude is that some sort of line should be drawn. I fully agree that any determination of where that line should be drawn is liable to be somewhat arbitrary but that is just a fact of life. I reject utterly the line of argument that conflates potential with actuality, that line leads to complete insanity (every sperm is sacred etc)

    I find it somewhat curious that the same people who complain about the rewarding of womb productivity (not without justification in my opinion) should be amongst those complaining when pregnancies are not brought to term, I would have thought they would approve.

    To sum up, I do not believe it is my right (nor anybody else's) to compel a woman to have a child she does not want, though I do believe that society has a right to demand that termination is done in a timely fashion if it is to be done at all. I do not believe that what the world needs right now is more babies brought up by irresponsible mothers who didn't want them in the first place and likely to grow up with the same bad attitudes that their parents had.

    I find it somewhat curious that the same people who complain about the rewarding of womb productivity (not without justification in my opinion)

    Excellent comment, but given that civilization depends on womb productivity, what would anyone object to it? I understand objections to dysgenic fertility, but that would seem to be a different matter.

    • Replies: @MarkU

    but given that civilization depends on womb productivity, what would anyone object to it?
     
    Given the state of the planet at the moment, pollution, resource depletion, species loss and an increasing tendency to militarism, it just seems to me very urgent that we address the root cause of these problems which is overpopulation. Basically it is possible to have too much of anything, and that includes womb productivity.
  30. @Rosie

    This raises the cost of marriage significantly for ordinary men, and when you raise the cost of something, you get less of it.
     
    I find myself caring less and less about these cowards and their interests.

    We have no-fault divorce. Eliminating no-fault divorce would reduce the incidence of your hypothetical.

    But most divorces are initiated by women, and most women would not like having their ability to initiate divorce restricted.
     
    Your usual obfuscation. The fact that most divorces are initiated by women in no way implies that women want no-fault divorce. You are assuming women who initiate divorce are doing so without cause.

    You have no idea what most women would want. We don't like no-fault divorce. Indeed, the President of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women, in an admirable departure from the usual practice within organized feminism of doing the opposite of what is good for women, actually opposed the recent switch to no-fault divorce.

    https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/blogs/vote-up/2010/06/15/no-fault-divorce-issue-causes-rift-in-ny-national-organization-for-women/2169767/

    I find myself caring less and less about these cowards and their interests.

    And here I mean men who shun marriage because of some ridiculous notion that courts are “biased” against them, not all men.

  31. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    This raises the cost of marriage significantly for ordinary men, and when you raise the cost of something, you get less of it.
     
    I find myself caring less and less about these cowards and their interests.

    We have no-fault divorce. Eliminating no-fault divorce would reduce the incidence of your hypothetical.

    But most divorces are initiated by women, and most women would not like having their ability to initiate divorce restricted.
     
    Your usual obfuscation. The fact that most divorces are initiated by women in no way implies that women want no-fault divorce. You are assuming women who initiate divorce are doing so without cause.

    You have no idea what most women would want. We don't like no-fault divorce. Indeed, the President of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women, in an admirable departure from the usual practice within organized feminism of doing the opposite of what is good for women, actually opposed the recent switch to no-fault divorce.

    https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/blogs/vote-up/2010/06/15/no-fault-divorce-issue-causes-rift-in-ny-national-organization-for-women/2169767/

    I find myself caring less and less about these cowards and their interests.

    You shouldn’t be too dissatisfied with the status quo then. Marriage rates are at record lows. A minority of wealthier and high status men enjoy serial marriages and relationships, and the women who marry them seem to be satisfied and certainly don’t suffer materially when they get divorced. And ordinary women now have many employment and career opportunities so they don’t have to shack up with regular Joes out of necessity or tradition.

    Your usual obfuscation. The fact that most divorces are initiated by women in no way implies that women want no-fault divorce. You are assuming women who initiate divorce are doing so without cause.

    Most divorces are no-fault divorces. In fact, most states no longer even recognize fault divorces. A no-fault divorce is not a divorce without “cause”. The typical “cause” for no-fault divorce is “irreconcilable differences” or an “irreparable breakdown of the marriage.” Before no-fault divorces, when you only had fault divorces, a spouse had to prove serious fault such as adultery in a court of law in order to be granted a divorce.

    California went no-fault 50 years or so ago, and most of the country, including New York now, is no-fault or effectively no-fault. That New York state NOW president was not very representative.

    I think most women want no-fault, or a fault divorce system that is effectively no-fault. I don’t think they want a serious fault divorce system in which a wife has to prove a serious fault or crime to some hardass judge.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    A minority of wealthier and high status men enjoy serial marriages and relationships, and the women who marry them seem to be satisfied and certainly don’t suffer materially when they get divorced.
     
    Yet you wish to enable this behavior by allowing men to walk away from their marriage without any financial consequences.


    Most divorces are no-fault divorces. In fact, most states no longer even recognize fault divorces. A no-fault divorce is not a divorce without “cause”. The typical “cause” for no-fault divorce is “irreconcilable differences” or an “irreparable breakdown of the marriage.” Before no-fault divorces, when you only had fault divorces, a spouse had to prove serious fault such as adultery in a court of law in order to be granted a divorce.
     
    This is precisely why we should get rid of NFD. It enables a great deal of scaremongering about innocent men being "divorced raped," just because of some boilerplate in a court order that bears no relationship to the reality of the situation.

    I think most women want no-fault, or a fault divorce system that is effectively no-fault. I don’t think they want a serious fault divorce system in which a wife has to prove a serious fault or crime to some hardass judge.

     

    And your speculation about what women want is of no import whatsoever.
  32. @MarkU
    Given that this thread has been almost entirely hijacked by a discussion about divorce and alimony, I thought I should bring it back on topic.

    As an atheist I have a clear cut moral standpoint, which is that a foetus (proper spelling) starts off as a bundle of undifferentiated cells (not a person) but ends up as a person. Essentially, early stage abortions are not a moral issue as far as I am concerned but late stage abortions definitely are. So where should the line be drawn? As I am not God (particularly as there is no such animal anyway) I am modest enough to admit that that is NOT my call but my own attitude is that some sort of line should be drawn. I fully agree that any determination of where that line should be drawn is liable to be somewhat arbitrary but that is just a fact of life. I reject utterly the line of argument that conflates potential with actuality, that line leads to complete insanity (every sperm is sacred etc)

    I find it somewhat curious that the same people who complain about the rewarding of womb productivity (not without justification in my opinion) should be amongst those complaining when pregnancies are not brought to term, I would have thought they would approve.

    To sum up, I do not believe it is my right (nor anybody else's) to compel a woman to have a child she does not want, though I do believe that society has a right to demand that termination is done in a timely fashion if it is to be done at all. I do not believe that what the world needs right now is more babies brought up by irresponsible mothers who didn't want them in the first place and likely to grow up with the same bad attitudes that their parents had.

    I made a gag in response to Twinkie, I hadn’t expected it to take off the way it did.

    Yeah, I’m not religious and I’m very wishy-washy on abortion. Most Americans feel the way you do–it should be legal with some restrictions, often by fetal age.

  33. @Rosie

    I find it somewhat curious that the same people who complain about the rewarding of womb productivity (not without justification in my opinion)
     
    Excellent comment, but given that civilization depends on womb productivity, what would anyone object to it? I understand objections to dysgenic fertility, but that would seem to be a different matter.

    but given that civilization depends on womb productivity, what would anyone object to it?

    Given the state of the planet at the moment, pollution, resource depletion, species loss and an increasing tendency to militarism, it just seems to me very urgent that we address the root cause of these problems which is overpopulation. Basically it is possible to have too much of anything, and that includes womb productivity.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Given the state of the planet at the moment, pollution, resource depletion, species loss and an increasing tendency to militarism, it just seems to me very urgent that we address the root cause of these problems which is overpopulation.
     
    ALL of that overpopulation is in the turd world; the West is well below replacement reproduction and is doing far more than its part to preserve e.g. endangered species.  If you want to address overpopulation, one obvious necessity is to machine-gun all the "boat people" and make certain that the video gets back to their home countries along with container-loads of condoms and Depo-Provera.

    If human traffickers are relying on money paid back by their cargo, killing the cargo kills their business at both ends.  Killing the criminals helps, but starving them works eventually.
  34. @Anonymous
    No shit.

    86% of women who get an abortion are unmarried, compared to only 40% of women who give birth.

    Personally, I'd rather die than be some unwed welfare queen. My mother and father would prefer that I remain a childless spinster than have out of wedlock babies or get divorced.

    48% of women who got an abortion said their *primary* reason for getting an abortion is because they are not married. Which means that if the baby father proposed marriage, almost all of them would have backed away from abortion.

    Men: Women shouldn't have access to birth control!
    Men: Only losers marry their baby's mother! Cool guys fuck random broads and leave, even if they get pregnant! Sticking around and being a father is beta!
    Also men: Wanna f***?

    “Men: Women shouldn’t have access to birth control!”

    Other than a few hardcore Catholics—who believe no one, man or women—should have access to birth control, plus a small subculture of the small rightwing subculture, in other words, less than 2% of the male population, I don’t know any men who say this.

    “Men: Only losers marry their baby’s mother! Cool guys fuck random broads and leave, even if they get pregnant! Sticking around and being a father is beta!”

    I don’t know any non-black men who say this. And the black men I know who do say this use different nomenclature.

    “Also men: Wanna f***?”

    As the holders of a cheap and plentiful biological good, men are naturally always looking for takers.

    As the holders of a scarce and expensive biological good, women are naturally hesitant and coquettish in bestowing their favors.

    Such is life.

    Civilized cultures may domesticate these facts with customs, orderly cultures may rule these facts with laws, artistic cultures may embellish these facts baroquely, but the underlying facts remain.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Small? Subculture?

    It seems like it's 50% of all men, judging by the amount of these types of comments you see on the internet.

    It really does seem like these days, 50% or more of white men are identifying as "alt-right" "PUA" "MRA" or similar. Just look at the internet comments on manosphere forums, blogs, social media, etc.

    As for my second statement, don't look at what men say. Look at what men do, just as you look at what women do. Almost all black and hispanic men have the "Cool guys fuck random broads and leave, even if they get pregnant! Sticking around and being a father is beta!” attitude. Almost all prole white men have this attitude. If you don't know any men with this attitude, you must only be acquainted with MMC, UMC, and UC white men. And Jewish/Asian men.
  35. @MarkU
    Given that this thread has been almost entirely hijacked by a discussion about divorce and alimony, I thought I should bring it back on topic.

    As an atheist I have a clear cut moral standpoint, which is that a foetus (proper spelling) starts off as a bundle of undifferentiated cells (not a person) but ends up as a person. Essentially, early stage abortions are not a moral issue as far as I am concerned but late stage abortions definitely are. So where should the line be drawn? As I am not God (particularly as there is no such animal anyway) I am modest enough to admit that that is NOT my call but my own attitude is that some sort of line should be drawn. I fully agree that any determination of where that line should be drawn is liable to be somewhat arbitrary but that is just a fact of life. I reject utterly the line of argument that conflates potential with actuality, that line leads to complete insanity (every sperm is sacred etc)

    I find it somewhat curious that the same people who complain about the rewarding of womb productivity (not without justification in my opinion) should be amongst those complaining when pregnancies are not brought to term, I would have thought they would approve.

    To sum up, I do not believe it is my right (nor anybody else's) to compel a woman to have a child she does not want, though I do believe that society has a right to demand that termination is done in a timely fashion if it is to be done at all. I do not believe that what the world needs right now is more babies brought up by irresponsible mothers who didn't want them in the first place and likely to grow up with the same bad attitudes that their parents had.

    “As an atheist I have a clear cut moral standpoint”

    Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?

    • Replies: @MarkU
    I don't think that is a contradiction. I think this is one area where an atheist is more likely to see the matter objectively and have a clear cut point of view. More specifically, an atheist won't believe in souls and is therefore compelled to believe that consciousness is an emergent characteristic. A bundle of undifferentiated cells is not a person. If a potential person is given the same status as a person then is contraception ethically dubious? Is abstinence an unacknowledged form of murder? in both of those cases potential people have been denied their existence.
  36. @Anonymous

    I find myself caring less and less about these cowards and their interests.
     
    You shouldn't be too dissatisfied with the status quo then. Marriage rates are at record lows. A minority of wealthier and high status men enjoy serial marriages and relationships, and the women who marry them seem to be satisfied and certainly don't suffer materially when they get divorced. And ordinary women now have many employment and career opportunities so they don't have to shack up with regular Joes out of necessity or tradition.

    Your usual obfuscation. The fact that most divorces are initiated by women in no way implies that women want no-fault divorce. You are assuming women who initiate divorce are doing so without cause.
     
    Most divorces are no-fault divorces. In fact, most states no longer even recognize fault divorces. A no-fault divorce is not a divorce without "cause". The typical "cause" for no-fault divorce is "irreconcilable differences" or an "irreparable breakdown of the marriage." Before no-fault divorces, when you only had fault divorces, a spouse had to prove serious fault such as adultery in a court of law in order to be granted a divorce.

    California went no-fault 50 years or so ago, and most of the country, including New York now, is no-fault or effectively no-fault. That New York state NOW president was not very representative.

    I think most women want no-fault, or a fault divorce system that is effectively no-fault. I don't think they want a serious fault divorce system in which a wife has to prove a serious fault or crime to some hardass judge.

    A minority of wealthier and high status men enjoy serial marriages and relationships, and the women who marry them seem to be satisfied and certainly don’t suffer materially when they get divorced.

    Yet you wish to enable this behavior by allowing men to walk away from their marriage without any financial consequences.

    Most divorces are no-fault divorces. In fact, most states no longer even recognize fault divorces. A no-fault divorce is not a divorce without “cause”. The typical “cause” for no-fault divorce is “irreconcilable differences” or an “irreparable breakdown of the marriage.” Before no-fault divorces, when you only had fault divorces, a spouse had to prove serious fault such as adultery in a court of law in order to be granted a divorce.

    This is precisely why we should get rid of NFD. It enables a great deal of scaremongering about innocent men being “divorced raped,” just because of some boilerplate in a court order that bears no relationship to the reality of the situation.

    I think most women want no-fault, or a fault divorce system that is effectively no-fault. I don’t think they want a serious fault divorce system in which a wife has to prove a serious fault or crime to some hardass judge.

    And your speculation about what women want is of no import whatsoever.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Yet you wish to enable this behavior by allowing men to walk away from their marriage without any financial consequences.
     
    Most divorces are initiated by women. Only a minority of wealthy men don't suffer major consequences.

    This is precisely why we should get rid of NFD. It enables a great deal of scaremongering about innocent men being “divorced raped,” just because of some boilerplate in a court order that bears no relationship to the reality of the situation.
     
    But the reality is that most divorces would not satisfy the traditional criteria of "fault" such as adultery, abuse, and wrongdoing. Most men today who are served divorce papers did not commit adultery, beat their wives, etc. Women divorce them out of "irreconcilable differences".

    And your speculation about what women want is of no import whatsoever.
     
    Most divorces are no-fault divorces and initiated by women, which suggests it is something want.
  37. @Rosie

    Embracing the new mockery of marriage is not “embracing marriage”.
     
    It would probably be more productive to say what you think is wrong in particular.

    Seek and ye shall find
     
    Nothing but unsubstantiated anecdotes.


    And none of this considers the various forms of alimony/child support (the distinction is largely a legal fiction), which are never 50/50.
     
    Nor should they be. The right to alimony is essential to the legal existence of a marriage. If there is no right to alimony, you are not a spouse, but rather an at-will cohabitant paramour.

    “It would probably be more productive to say what you think is wrong in particular.”

    Happily, it appears from your comment that you are already aware of this, even if you are not aware of the cause.

    “If there is no right to alimony, you are not a spouse, but rather an at-will cohabitant paramour.”

    I agree that “at-will cohabitant paramours” is a mockery of marriage. Unfortunately, at-will cohabitant paramours is exactly what modern No-Fault* marriage law makes the marriage partners into. (Although apparently you are willing to accept this if you get a cash payout at the end. I had hoped you would consider the marriage commitment worthy of better terms.)

    *I use the popular term, “No-Fault”, for modern divorce laws even though the name is a red herring. While the “no fault” aspect can be harmful, the name is distracting. The real damage to marriage is caused not by partners agreeing to dissolve their marriage. This is harmless enough, if the partners agree. But the friendly-sounding “no fault” name conceals the poison freight within. The “no fault” laws do not require both partners to consent. So in reality, so-called “no fault” laws are actually Unilateral Divorce At-Will laws. Of course, if they were honestly named “Unilateral Divorce At Will” laws, they wouldn’t have gotten enacted in the first place.

    The effect of UDAW laws is that perversely, among all binding agreements people enter into over the course of their lives, the one that has the highest stakes of all—the one that entails their lives, their lives’ work, their inheritances and their children—this agreement alone is not only non-binding, not only can it be abrogated by either party at any time for any reason or for no reason, but also it can be used as a weapon against you to penalize, bankrupt and encumber you, and to deprive you of your children, even though you have committed no crime and no one need accuse you of any crime. Imagine that: penalties vastly in excess of what actual felons get, for the non-crime of … marriage under the modern legal regime.

    Incidentally, even states that do not officially have “No Fault” divorce laws, still have had subtler changes to their divorce code and courtroom practice such that they all are de facto Unilateral Divorce At Will states. This is why there is no significant difference in divorce rates between states with differently labelled legal regimes.

    These changes across different jurisdictions did not happen all by peculiar coincidence. Starting in the 1970s there was an organized campaign of radical legal theorists to rewrite the nation’s law codes, which has subsequently spread to all common law countries. In the US, the marital law wing of this campaign culminated in the federal government withholding Interstate highway funds from any state that did not abide by the new legal regime, effectively making an end run around state sovereignty by a tactic of dubious, but apparently accepted, Constitutionality.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    (Although apparently you are willing to accept this if you get a cash payout at the end. I had hoped you would consider the marriage commitment worthy of better terms.)
     
    Not fair. A lasting marriage is much I be preferred over divorce, but alimony is essential if it cannot be avoided.


    Of course, if they were honestly named “Unilateral Divorce At Will” laws, they wouldn’t have gotten enacted in the first place.
     
    What if a man carouses with women and spends marital resources on bimbos but insists he doesn't want a divorce and refuses to consent? What if he is addicted to gambling and is wasting assets accrued during a woman's helpmeetship to support his habit, but insists he loves his wife and wants to remain married.

    If it seems like I'm being obtuse here, I assure you I am not. Whenever there is a perceived injustice, the temptation is to demand restrictions on judicial discretion, which may prove to be a cire worse than the disease.

    I think there must be a place for unilateral divorce, if and only if fault can be shown.
  38. @Audacious Epigone
    That seems plausible to me. Is there extant data on male support or lack thereof? A quick search doesn't immediately reveal anything obvious, but I'll do some digging.

    A quick search doesn’t immediately reveal anything obvious, but I’ll do some digging.

    Thanks. I’ve done some poking around the internet, too, and found nothing.

  39. @Almost Missouri

    "It would probably be more productive to say what you think is wrong in particular."
     
    Happily, it appears from your comment that you are already aware of this, even if you are not aware of the cause.

    "If there is no right to alimony, you are not a spouse, but rather an at-will cohabitant paramour."
     
    I agree that "at-will cohabitant paramours" is a mockery of marriage. Unfortunately, at-will cohabitant paramours is exactly what modern No-Fault* marriage law makes the marriage partners into. (Although apparently you are willing to accept this if you get a cash payout at the end. I had hoped you would consider the marriage commitment worthy of better terms.)

    *I use the popular term, "No-Fault", for modern divorce laws even though the name is a red herring. While the "no fault" aspect can be harmful, the name is distracting. The real damage to marriage is caused not by partners agreeing to dissolve their marriage. This is harmless enough, if the partners agree. But the friendly-sounding "no fault" name conceals the poison freight within. The "no fault" laws do not require both partners to consent. So in reality, so-called "no fault" laws are actually Unilateral Divorce At-Will laws. Of course, if they were honestly named "Unilateral Divorce At Will" laws, they wouldn't have gotten enacted in the first place.

    The effect of UDAW laws is that perversely, among all binding agreements people enter into over the course of their lives, the one that has the highest stakes of all—the one that entails their lives, their lives' work, their inheritances and their children—this agreement alone is not only non-binding, not only can it be abrogated by either party at any time for any reason or for no reason, but also it can be used as a weapon against you to penalize, bankrupt and encumber you, and to deprive you of your children, even though you have committed no crime and no one need accuse you of any crime. Imagine that: penalties vastly in excess of what actual felons get, for the non-crime of ... marriage under the modern legal regime.

    Incidentally, even states that do not officially have "No Fault" divorce laws, still have had subtler changes to their divorce code and courtroom practice such that they all are de facto Unilateral Divorce At Will states. This is why there is no significant difference in divorce rates between states with differently labelled legal regimes.

    These changes across different jurisdictions did not happen all by peculiar coincidence. Starting in the 1970s there was an organized campaign of radical legal theorists to rewrite the nation's law codes, which has subsequently spread to all common law countries. In the US, the marital law wing of this campaign culminated in the federal government withholding Interstate highway funds from any state that did not abide by the new legal regime, effectively making an end run around state sovereignty by a tactic of dubious, but apparently accepted, Constitutionality.

    (Although apparently you are willing to accept this if you get a cash payout at the end. I had hoped you would consider the marriage commitment worthy of better terms.)

    Not fair. A lasting marriage is much I be preferred over divorce, but alimony is essential if it cannot be avoided.

    Of course, if they were honestly named “Unilateral Divorce At Will” laws, they wouldn’t have gotten enacted in the first place.

    What if a man carouses with women and spends marital resources on bimbos but insists he doesn’t want a divorce and refuses to consent? What if he is addicted to gambling and is wasting assets accrued during a woman’s helpmeetship to support his habit, but insists he loves his wife and wants to remain married.

    If it seems like I’m being obtuse here, I assure you I am not. Whenever there is a perceived injustice, the temptation is to demand restrictions on judicial discretion, which may prove to be a cire worse than the disease.

    I think there must be a place for unilateral divorce, if and only if fault can be shown.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "there must be a place for unilateral divorce, if and only if fault can be shown"
     
    That's how the old legal regime worked.

    "What if a man carouses with women and spends marital resources on bimbos"
     
    Formerly, all jurisdictions recognized adultery as a legitimate cause of a divorce action.

    Perversely, today in some jurisdictions in some circumstances now adultery by itself is not a sufficient cause, though in practice this doesn't matter since all jurisdictions are de facto Unilateral Divorce At Will (or "Unilateral Divorce At No Cause", if you prefer) anyway.
    , @Mr. Rational

    What if he is addicted to gambling and is wasting assets accrued during a woman’s helpmeetship to support his habit
     
    What if she is addicted to irresponsible spending and running up debts to support her habit?  THAT is by far the more common scenario.

    In the past, a wife could not indebt her husband without his signature.  That limited such abuses.  Today, a woman has license to do as she will and make her husband pay.
  40. SFG says:
    @Anonymous
    No shit.

    86% of women who get an abortion are unmarried, compared to only 40% of women who give birth.

    Personally, I'd rather die than be some unwed welfare queen. My mother and father would prefer that I remain a childless spinster than have out of wedlock babies or get divorced.

    48% of women who got an abortion said their *primary* reason for getting an abortion is because they are not married. Which means that if the baby father proposed marriage, almost all of them would have backed away from abortion.

    Men: Women shouldn't have access to birth control!
    Men: Only losers marry their baby's mother! Cool guys fuck random broads and leave, even if they get pregnant! Sticking around and being a father is beta!
    Also men: Wanna f***?

    Men: Women shouldn’t have access to birth control!
    Men: Only losers marry their baby’s mother! Cool guys fuck random broads and leave, even if they get pregnant! Sticking around and being a father is beta!
    Also men: Wanna f***?

    That’s 1) socially conservative men, 2) very irresponsible men, and…3) practically all men.

    • LOL: Rosie
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Men: Women shouldn’t have access to birth control!
     
    If I had the power, I would ban birth control for unmarried people. You'd have to be married to get it. Sadly, there would probably be a lot of fraud. I suspect many of our problems are caused by godless YOLOism, and legal reforms can't fix that.
    , @Anonymous
    1. Men who are "socially far right" now comprise like 50% of all men. Want proof? Just look at the comments on "alt-right", "PUA" and "MRA" blogs and forums.

    2. "Very irresponsible men" would include almost all black and hispanic men, as well as the bottom 59% of white men. To be fair, the absolute majority of women are just as irresponsible. What I'm trying to get at is that low IQ irresponsible people are way more common than high IQ responsible people.
  41. @MarkU
    Given that this thread has been almost entirely hijacked by a discussion about divorce and alimony, I thought I should bring it back on topic.

    As an atheist I have a clear cut moral standpoint, which is that a foetus (proper spelling) starts off as a bundle of undifferentiated cells (not a person) but ends up as a person. Essentially, early stage abortions are not a moral issue as far as I am concerned but late stage abortions definitely are. So where should the line be drawn? As I am not God (particularly as there is no such animal anyway) I am modest enough to admit that that is NOT my call but my own attitude is that some sort of line should be drawn. I fully agree that any determination of where that line should be drawn is liable to be somewhat arbitrary but that is just a fact of life. I reject utterly the line of argument that conflates potential with actuality, that line leads to complete insanity (every sperm is sacred etc)

    I find it somewhat curious that the same people who complain about the rewarding of womb productivity (not without justification in my opinion) should be amongst those complaining when pregnancies are not brought to term, I would have thought they would approve.

    To sum up, I do not believe it is my right (nor anybody else's) to compel a woman to have a child she does not want, though I do believe that society has a right to demand that termination is done in a timely fashion if it is to be done at all. I do not believe that what the world needs right now is more babies brought up by irresponsible mothers who didn't want them in the first place and likely to grow up with the same bad attitudes that their parents had.

    • Replies: @MarkU
    A great pity that the video you posted is not available in the UK, which sketch were you thinking of? I know them all very well.
  42. @SFG
    Men: Women shouldn’t have access to birth control!
    Men: Only losers marry their baby’s mother! Cool guys fuck random broads and leave, even if they get pregnant! Sticking around and being a father is beta!
    Also men: Wanna f***?


    That's 1) socially conservative men, 2) very irresponsible men, and...3) practically all men.

    Men: Women shouldn’t have access to birth control!

    If I had the power, I would ban birth control for unmarried people. You’d have to be married to get it. Sadly, there would probably be a lot of fraud. I suspect many of our problems are caused by godless YOLOism, and legal reforms can’t fix that.

    • Replies: @MarkU

    If I had the power, I would ban birth control for unmarried people. You’d have to be married to get it. Sadly, there would probably be a lot of fraud. I suspect many of our problems are caused by godless YOLOism, and legal reforms can’t fix that.
     
    What do you imagine would happen if you banned birth control for unmarried people? I'm just asking because I have my own ideas about how that would play out and I find it difficult to imagine that you would like the results.
  43. @Almost Missouri

    "As an atheist I have a clear cut moral standpoint"
     
    Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

    I don’t think that is a contradiction. I think this is one area where an atheist is more likely to see the matter objectively and have a clear cut point of view. More specifically, an atheist won’t believe in souls and is therefore compelled to believe that consciousness is an emergent characteristic. A bundle of undifferentiated cells is not a person. If a potential person is given the same status as a person then is contraception ethically dubious? Is abstinence an unacknowledged form of murder? in both of those cases potential people have been denied their existence.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "an atheist is more likely to see the matter objectively"
     
    Since this is a moral question, this is not so much a matter of perception as of interpretation. No one really disagrees about the number of blastula cells at different ages, for example. What is in question if the significance of it.

    "an atheist won’t believe in souls and is therefore compelled to believe that consciousness is an emergent characteristic"
     
    But what if souls exist? Then you've just claimed to be more qualified by virtue of your prejudice against a certain fact. This seems like a peculiar grounds for qualification.

    "If a potential person is given the same status as a person then is contraception ethically dubious? Is abstinence an unacknowledged form of murder?"
     
    Both of these questions presuppose some kind of "right to be born". I know of no religion that propounds such a right. Amusingly, the only time I have ever heard anyone articulate the existence of such a right, it was an atheist homosexual demonstrating for the "right" of his potential clone "son" to be born, or something equally risible.

    So the short answer to your questions is: I don't know, why don't you consult with your fellow atheists?
  44. @Rosie

    (Although apparently you are willing to accept this if you get a cash payout at the end. I had hoped you would consider the marriage commitment worthy of better terms.)
     
    Not fair. A lasting marriage is much I be preferred over divorce, but alimony is essential if it cannot be avoided.


    Of course, if they were honestly named “Unilateral Divorce At Will” laws, they wouldn’t have gotten enacted in the first place.
     
    What if a man carouses with women and spends marital resources on bimbos but insists he doesn't want a divorce and refuses to consent? What if he is addicted to gambling and is wasting assets accrued during a woman's helpmeetship to support his habit, but insists he loves his wife and wants to remain married.

    If it seems like I'm being obtuse here, I assure you I am not. Whenever there is a perceived injustice, the temptation is to demand restrictions on judicial discretion, which may prove to be a cire worse than the disease.

    I think there must be a place for unilateral divorce, if and only if fault can be shown.

    “there must be a place for unilateral divorce, if and only if fault can be shown”

    That’s how the old legal regime worked.

    “What if a man carouses with women and spends marital resources on bimbos”

    Formerly, all jurisdictions recognized adultery as a legitimate cause of a divorce action.

    Perversely, today in some jurisdictions in some circumstances now adultery by itself is not a sufficient cause, though in practice this doesn’t matter since all jurisdictions are de facto Unilateral Divorce At Will (or “Unilateral Divorce At No Cause”, if you prefer) anyway.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Perversely, today in some jurisdictions in some circumstances now adultery by itself is not a sufficient cause,
     
    I actually don't disagree that a single instance of adultery ought not be considered sufficient cause. People make mistakes.
  45. @Rosie
    Here you make some decent points.

    The problem is that courts consider things “marital property” when they were brought into the marriage by men, or purchased with money men brought in. Such property and funds should not be in play, full stop.
     
    I don't disagree with you as a general rule, but courts absolutely ought to have discretion too what is just in individual cases.

    Suppose you are 25 years old and you marry a man with a paid-off house. He dumps you when you're 35 and replaces you with a younger woman.

    Do you really think she isn't entitled to a share of the house? What public policy is served by allowing a man to behave this way? How does this behavior encourage women to behave? These are all things that courts take into consideration.

    I suspect you are hearing anecdotes that sound unfair, because the aggrieved "victim" isn't telling you the whole story.


    Neither should the lifestyle of someone seeking a no-fault divorce be considered by the courts. If lifestyle of children is to be maintained, custody should go with the party not seeking the divorce.
     
    Here again I agree in principle, but what if one party is not seeking divorce but is still guilty of grave marital misconduct?

    I have said elsewhere that as far as I'm concerned, if you leave for nothing , you should leave with nothing.

    courts absolutely ought to have discretion too what is just in individual cases.

    Except you mean “in every case”, meaning “according to the prejudice of the judge… and which divorce lawyers gave him campaign contributions.”

    Suppose you are 25 years old and you marry a man with a paid-off house. He dumps you when you’re 35 and replaces you with a younger woman.

    Do you really think she isn’t entitled to a share of the house?

    Her?  Fuck, no.  He brought it in, she contributed nothing to it, she lived in it rent-free; she deserves no part of it.  If they had children together the children have a right to live in the house, but she does not.  If women can shit-can a spouse they are tired of, men can too.  Fair’s fair.

    But note, I said “someone seeking a no-fault divorce”.  If there’s infidelity or other abuse, the at-fault party should be at risk of losing things.  Otherwise property should not be in play, and should not be incentive to seek divorce as a means of personal enrichment.

    Take away the economic incentives (and means to pay the lawyers), and there will be a lot less divorce.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Except you mean “in every case”, meaning “according to the prejudice of the judge… and which divorce lawyers gave him campaign contributions.”
     
    This strikes me as hysterical paranoia TBH. Nonetheless, if you are correct, the solution is to stop the campaign donations, not eliminate judicial discretion, which would create far more travesties than it would prevent.
    , @Toronto Russian
    It is increasingly not possible to use divorce for enrichment.

    Divorce laws vary both in practice and in theory from state to state regarding custody and child support.  Contrary to the memes, there’s been a major shift towards practical joint custody (each parent gets 50% physical custody of the children) in some states, particularly when both mother and father work outside the home and earn similar incomes. The latter arrangement, incidentally, now represents a majority of all married households with children under 15.
     

    There is a marriage penalty in that many states pay more child support to women who have children out of wedlock with multiple fathers compared to having the same number of children with one man.
     

    There is a lot of talk about wives being sold divorce and that is probably true to some degree, but in practice, what’s being sold more frequently is the idea that a woman can use her out of wedlock child to get money specifically if she has no relationship (beyond the most temporary) with the father. Married women breaking up their marriages increasingly still have to co-parent and are cut off from child support in more and more jurisdictions, including housewives being expected to get a job and receive minimal child support or alimony.
     

    Most women are ignorant of divorce and child support regulations in any state, including the one they live in. This includes foreign women who are here on work visas or who became citizens some other way. And most of the ones who aren’t find it more profitable in every sense of the term to be married than to divorce.  Lawyer’s fees eat up a lot of the money with women who are savvy and married to someone with a big salary and/or net worth and then they are sad that they didn’t get one million dollars but only three hundred thousand. Long story short, a guy has to make a LOT of money and be EXTREMELY improvident in his marriage choices to be frivorced to the tune of minimal custody and maximal child support. It is just not usual or common for a wife to break up her marriage to a guy making 80k when she makes 60k or 40k and 25k. And when she does, it’s not usual for him to have most of his pay imputed as child support.  What is increasingly common in such divorce scenarios is a very modest amount of child support (much closer to a car payment per month than a mortgage) and 33-50% visitation on his end.
     
    https://thepracticalconservative.wordpress.com/real-divorce-information/

    Got to give it to modern egalitarian feminism (a la Sweden) that men are at least seen as able to do 50% of parenting, not just be "Sunday dads" (I knew a divorced Swede whose daughter lived with him for 15 days straight each month.)
  46. @MarkU
    I don't think that is a contradiction. I think this is one area where an atheist is more likely to see the matter objectively and have a clear cut point of view. More specifically, an atheist won't believe in souls and is therefore compelled to believe that consciousness is an emergent characteristic. A bundle of undifferentiated cells is not a person. If a potential person is given the same status as a person then is contraception ethically dubious? Is abstinence an unacknowledged form of murder? in both of those cases potential people have been denied their existence.

    “an atheist is more likely to see the matter objectively”

    Since this is a moral question, this is not so much a matter of perception as of interpretation. No one really disagrees about the number of blastula cells at different ages, for example. What is in question if the significance of it.

    “an atheist won’t believe in souls and is therefore compelled to believe that consciousness is an emergent characteristic”

    But what if souls exist? Then you’ve just claimed to be more qualified by virtue of your prejudice against a certain fact. This seems like a peculiar grounds for qualification.

    “If a potential person is given the same status as a person then is contraception ethically dubious? Is abstinence an unacknowledged form of murder?”

    Both of these questions presuppose some kind of “right to be born”. I know of no religion that propounds such a right. Amusingly, the only time I have ever heard anyone articulate the existence of such a right, it was an atheist homosexual demonstrating for the “right” of his potential clone “son” to be born, or something equally risible.

    So the short answer to your questions is: I don’t know, why don’t you consult with your fellow atheists?

    • Replies: @MarkU

    But what if souls exist? Then you’ve just claimed to be more qualified by virtue of your prejudice against a certain fact. This seems like a peculiar grounds for qualification.
     
    Would you describe a disbelief in mermaids, faeries, goblins etc as a 'prejudice against certain facts' I doubt it very much.

    So the short answer to your questions is: I don’t know, why don’t you consult with your fellow atheists?
     
    The questions you highlighted were entirely rhetorical as you are almost certainly intelligent enough to know. I was just highlighting the absurdities that can result if you have adopted the theist viewpoint.
  47. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    A minority of wealthier and high status men enjoy serial marriages and relationships, and the women who marry them seem to be satisfied and certainly don’t suffer materially when they get divorced.
     
    Yet you wish to enable this behavior by allowing men to walk away from their marriage without any financial consequences.


    Most divorces are no-fault divorces. In fact, most states no longer even recognize fault divorces. A no-fault divorce is not a divorce without “cause”. The typical “cause” for no-fault divorce is “irreconcilable differences” or an “irreparable breakdown of the marriage.” Before no-fault divorces, when you only had fault divorces, a spouse had to prove serious fault such as adultery in a court of law in order to be granted a divorce.
     
    This is precisely why we should get rid of NFD. It enables a great deal of scaremongering about innocent men being "divorced raped," just because of some boilerplate in a court order that bears no relationship to the reality of the situation.

    I think most women want no-fault, or a fault divorce system that is effectively no-fault. I don’t think they want a serious fault divorce system in which a wife has to prove a serious fault or crime to some hardass judge.

     

    And your speculation about what women want is of no import whatsoever.

    Yet you wish to enable this behavior by allowing men to walk away from their marriage without any financial consequences.

    Most divorces are initiated by women. Only a minority of wealthy men don’t suffer major consequences.

    This is precisely why we should get rid of NFD. It enables a great deal of scaremongering about innocent men being “divorced raped,” just because of some boilerplate in a court order that bears no relationship to the reality of the situation.

    But the reality is that most divorces would not satisfy the traditional criteria of “fault” such as adultery, abuse, and wrongdoing. Most men today who are served divorce papers did not commit adultery, beat their wives, etc. Women divorce them out of “irreconcilable differences”.

    And your speculation about what women want is of no import whatsoever.

    Most divorces are no-fault divorces and initiated by women, which suggests it is something want.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    But the reality is that most divorces would not satisfy the traditional criteria of “fault” such as adultery, abuse, and wrongdoing. Most men today who are served divorce papers did not commit adultery, beat their wives, etc. Women divorce them out of “irreconcilable differences”.
     
    You could give Twinkie a run for his money for dishonesty, and that's saying something. Adultery and wife-beating are actually relatively mild offenses. If my husband were to ever go screw some bimbo or bitchslap me once or twice, that would be nothing compared to the constant disrespect, ordering around, and ice-cold indifference I have seen some men inflict on their wives. This might sound radical to you, but we insist that you be nice to us.
  48. @MarkU
    Given that this thread has been almost entirely hijacked by a discussion about divorce and alimony, I thought I should bring it back on topic.

    As an atheist I have a clear cut moral standpoint, which is that a foetus (proper spelling) starts off as a bundle of undifferentiated cells (not a person) but ends up as a person. Essentially, early stage abortions are not a moral issue as far as I am concerned but late stage abortions definitely are. So where should the line be drawn? As I am not God (particularly as there is no such animal anyway) I am modest enough to admit that that is NOT my call but my own attitude is that some sort of line should be drawn. I fully agree that any determination of where that line should be drawn is liable to be somewhat arbitrary but that is just a fact of life. I reject utterly the line of argument that conflates potential with actuality, that line leads to complete insanity (every sperm is sacred etc)

    I find it somewhat curious that the same people who complain about the rewarding of womb productivity (not without justification in my opinion) should be amongst those complaining when pregnancies are not brought to term, I would have thought they would approve.

    To sum up, I do not believe it is my right (nor anybody else's) to compel a woman to have a child she does not want, though I do believe that society has a right to demand that termination is done in a timely fashion if it is to be done at all. I do not believe that what the world needs right now is more babies brought up by irresponsible mothers who didn't want them in the first place and likely to grow up with the same bad attitudes that their parents had.

    I do believe that society has a right to demand that termination is done in a timely fashion if it is to be done at all.

    “Timely” depends on who knew what and when they knew it.  When do you get to make the decision about a foetus with Down’s or neural tube defects, or the product of a conception by a rapist rather than the husband when timing couldn’t otherwise distinguish?

    I do not believe that what the world needs right now is more babies brought up by irresponsible mothers who didn’t want them in the first place

    Or irresponsible mothers who only demand that “someone gotta pay”?  Mandatory abortion for all of those, and make it retroactive!

  49. @MarkU

    but given that civilization depends on womb productivity, what would anyone object to it?
     
    Given the state of the planet at the moment, pollution, resource depletion, species loss and an increasing tendency to militarism, it just seems to me very urgent that we address the root cause of these problems which is overpopulation. Basically it is possible to have too much of anything, and that includes womb productivity.

    Given the state of the planet at the moment, pollution, resource depletion, species loss and an increasing tendency to militarism, it just seems to me very urgent that we address the root cause of these problems which is overpopulation.

    ALL of that overpopulation is in the turd world; the West is well below replacement reproduction and is doing far more than its part to preserve e.g. endangered species.  If you want to address overpopulation, one obvious necessity is to machine-gun all the “boat people” and make certain that the video gets back to their home countries along with container-loads of condoms and Depo-Provera.

    If human traffickers are relying on money paid back by their cargo, killing the cargo kills their business at both ends.  Killing the criminals helps, but starving them works eventually.

    • Replies: @MarkU

    ALL of that overpopulation is in the turd world; the West is well below replacement reproduction and is doing far more than its part to preserve e.g. endangered species. If you want to address overpopulation, one obvious necessity is to machine-gun all the “boat people” and make certain that the video gets back to their home countries along with container-loads of condoms and Depo-Provera.
     
    I agree that countries which are being responsible regarding their population size should not be used as overspill areas by countries which are not. I particularly support the supply of contraceptives to countries which need them.
  50. @Rosie

    (Although apparently you are willing to accept this if you get a cash payout at the end. I had hoped you would consider the marriage commitment worthy of better terms.)
     
    Not fair. A lasting marriage is much I be preferred over divorce, but alimony is essential if it cannot be avoided.


    Of course, if they were honestly named “Unilateral Divorce At Will” laws, they wouldn’t have gotten enacted in the first place.
     
    What if a man carouses with women and spends marital resources on bimbos but insists he doesn't want a divorce and refuses to consent? What if he is addicted to gambling and is wasting assets accrued during a woman's helpmeetship to support his habit, but insists he loves his wife and wants to remain married.

    If it seems like I'm being obtuse here, I assure you I am not. Whenever there is a perceived injustice, the temptation is to demand restrictions on judicial discretion, which may prove to be a cire worse than the disease.

    I think there must be a place for unilateral divorce, if and only if fault can be shown.

    What if he is addicted to gambling and is wasting assets accrued during a woman’s helpmeetship to support his habit

    What if she is addicted to irresponsible spending and running up debts to support her habit?  THAT is by far the more common scenario.

    In the past, a wife could not indebt her husband without his signature.  That limited such abuses.  Today, a woman has license to do as she will and make her husband pay.

  51. @Mr. Rational

    Given the state of the planet at the moment, pollution, resource depletion, species loss and an increasing tendency to militarism, it just seems to me very urgent that we address the root cause of these problems which is overpopulation.
     
    ALL of that overpopulation is in the turd world; the West is well below replacement reproduction and is doing far more than its part to preserve e.g. endangered species.  If you want to address overpopulation, one obvious necessity is to machine-gun all the "boat people" and make certain that the video gets back to their home countries along with container-loads of condoms and Depo-Provera.

    If human traffickers are relying on money paid back by their cargo, killing the cargo kills their business at both ends.  Killing the criminals helps, but starving them works eventually.

    ALL of that overpopulation is in the turd world; the West is well below replacement reproduction and is doing far more than its part to preserve e.g. endangered species. If you want to address overpopulation, one obvious necessity is to machine-gun all the “boat people” and make certain that the video gets back to their home countries along with container-loads of condoms and Depo-Provera.

    I agree that countries which are being responsible regarding their population size should not be used as overspill areas by countries which are not. I particularly support the supply of contraceptives to countries which need them.

  52. @Almost Missouri

    "an atheist is more likely to see the matter objectively"
     
    Since this is a moral question, this is not so much a matter of perception as of interpretation. No one really disagrees about the number of blastula cells at different ages, for example. What is in question if the significance of it.

    "an atheist won’t believe in souls and is therefore compelled to believe that consciousness is an emergent characteristic"
     
    But what if souls exist? Then you've just claimed to be more qualified by virtue of your prejudice against a certain fact. This seems like a peculiar grounds for qualification.

    "If a potential person is given the same status as a person then is contraception ethically dubious? Is abstinence an unacknowledged form of murder?"
     
    Both of these questions presuppose some kind of "right to be born". I know of no religion that propounds such a right. Amusingly, the only time I have ever heard anyone articulate the existence of such a right, it was an atheist homosexual demonstrating for the "right" of his potential clone "son" to be born, or something equally risible.

    So the short answer to your questions is: I don't know, why don't you consult with your fellow atheists?

    But what if souls exist? Then you’ve just claimed to be more qualified by virtue of your prejudice against a certain fact. This seems like a peculiar grounds for qualification.

    Would you describe a disbelief in mermaids, faeries, goblins etc as a ‘prejudice against certain facts’ I doubt it very much.

    So the short answer to your questions is: I don’t know, why don’t you consult with your fellow atheists?

    The questions you highlighted were entirely rhetorical as you are almost certainly intelligent enough to know. I was just highlighting the absurdities that can result if you have adopted the theist viewpoint.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "Would you describe a disbelief in mermaids, faeries, goblins etc as a ‘prejudice against certain facts’ I doubt it very much."
     
    Do you classify a concept of "soul" in the same category as the concepts of "mermaids, faeries, goblins etc"? If so, why? (N.B, the answer, "because I think them all absurd" proves no erudition, only prejudice.)

    "I was just highlighting the absurdities that can result if you have adopted the theist viewpoint."
     
    Perhaps that was your intention, but the result was highlighting absurdities that can result from adopting the atheist viewpoint.
  53. @Almost Missouri
    https://youtu.be/ccNcnQc7IIY?t=138

    A great pity that the video you posted is not available in the UK, which sketch were you thinking of? I know them all very well.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    It's the one where Graham Chapman is the put-upon suburban househusband atheist annoyed by the sound of Sunday morning church bells. After inflicting aggressive alliteration on his wife (Terry Jones?), "she" rescues him from his predicament by reminding him of his house-of-worship-seeking-missile.

    The video marker was set for the final silence after the storm when a chuffed Chapman remarks,

    "I've always said that there's nothing an agnostic can't do if he really doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not."
     
    BTW, you can probably use Tor Browser or a Tor window on Brave browser to end run UK browsing restrictions.
  54. @MarkU

    But what if souls exist? Then you’ve just claimed to be more qualified by virtue of your prejudice against a certain fact. This seems like a peculiar grounds for qualification.
     
    Would you describe a disbelief in mermaids, faeries, goblins etc as a 'prejudice against certain facts' I doubt it very much.

    So the short answer to your questions is: I don’t know, why don’t you consult with your fellow atheists?
     
    The questions you highlighted were entirely rhetorical as you are almost certainly intelligent enough to know. I was just highlighting the absurdities that can result if you have adopted the theist viewpoint.

    “Would you describe a disbelief in mermaids, faeries, goblins etc as a ‘prejudice against certain facts’ I doubt it very much.”

    Do you classify a concept of “soul” in the same category as the concepts of “mermaids, faeries, goblins etc”? If so, why? (N.B, the answer, “because I think them all absurd” proves no erudition, only prejudice.)

    “I was just highlighting the absurdities that can result if you have adopted the theist viewpoint.”

    Perhaps that was your intention, but the result was highlighting absurdities that can result from adopting the atheist viewpoint.

    • Replies: @MarkU

    Do you classify a concept of “soul” in the same category as the concepts of “mermaids, faeries, goblins etc”? If so, why? (N.B, the answer, “because I think them all absurd” proves no erudition, only prejudice.)
     
    Quite simply I do not believe stuff without evidence, OK?

    People appear to have no problems accepting other peoples religions as mythology, the Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Norse tales etc were once other peoples religions and they took them seriously. Are you seriously attempting to tell me that you find a need to retain an open mind about the existence of Odin, Thor, Zeus, Jupiter, Horus, Osiris, etc? presumably not. Why doesn't a dismissal of those older religions "prove no erudition, only prejudice"?

    It is widely held to be impossible to prove a negative, the onus is not on me to prove that souls do not exist. The existence of souls is simply a hypothesis, one for which there is no discernible evidence. To use an unsupported hypothesis to make ethical decisions in the real world is quite simply ridiculous.

    , @Mr. Rational

    Do you classify a concept of “soul” in the same category as the concepts of “mermaids, faeries, goblins etc”? If so, why?
     
    The concept of faeries was invoked to explain the phenomenon of birth defects ("changelings").  One typical response was to "return" the defective children to the faeries, which meant death by exposure or predators.

    We know how most birth defects come about now.  Faeries are not taken seriously any more; they came from a logical fallacy, inventing explanations to fill a space left by ignorance.

    We have no firm evidence that there is a "soul" that exists separately from the brain, or continues to exist after the death of same.  We do have firm evidence that disruption of the operation of certain parts of the brain produces "out of body" experiences, because we can reproduce them under laboratory conditions.

    Few people really want to cease existing.  The idea of a soul and an afterlife is attractive.  So is the idea of blaming faeries for birth defects actually caused by one's own negligence, such as consuming teratogens early in pregnancy.  That doesn't make it true.
  55. @Almost Missouri

    "Would you describe a disbelief in mermaids, faeries, goblins etc as a ‘prejudice against certain facts’ I doubt it very much."
     
    Do you classify a concept of "soul" in the same category as the concepts of "mermaids, faeries, goblins etc"? If so, why? (N.B, the answer, "because I think them all absurd" proves no erudition, only prejudice.)

    "I was just highlighting the absurdities that can result if you have adopted the theist viewpoint."
     
    Perhaps that was your intention, but the result was highlighting absurdities that can result from adopting the atheist viewpoint.

    Do you classify a concept of “soul” in the same category as the concepts of “mermaids, faeries, goblins etc”? If so, why? (N.B, the answer, “because I think them all absurd” proves no erudition, only prejudice.)

    Quite simply I do not believe stuff without evidence, OK?

    People appear to have no problems accepting other peoples religions as mythology, the Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Norse tales etc were once other peoples religions and they took them seriously. Are you seriously attempting to tell me that you find a need to retain an open mind about the existence of Odin, Thor, Zeus, Jupiter, Horus, Osiris, etc? presumably not. Why doesn’t a dismissal of those older religions “prove no erudition, only prejudice”?

    It is widely held to be impossible to prove a negative, the onus is not on me to prove that souls do not exist. The existence of souls is simply a hypothesis, one for which there is no discernible evidence. To use an unsupported hypothesis to make ethical decisions in the real world is quite simply ridiculous.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "It is widely held to be impossible to prove a negative"
     
    True. But then why proceed as if you had done so?

    "Why doesn’t a dismissal of those older religions “prove no erudition, only prejudice”?"
     
    You're right. It doesn't.

    "To use an unsupported hypothesis to make ethical decisions in the real world is quite simply ridiculous."
     
    I agree. Nevertheless, I estimate that upwards of 99.9% of ethical decisions are made just this way.
  56. @Rosie

    Men: Women shouldn’t have access to birth control!
     
    If I had the power, I would ban birth control for unmarried people. You'd have to be married to get it. Sadly, there would probably be a lot of fraud. I suspect many of our problems are caused by godless YOLOism, and legal reforms can't fix that.

    If I had the power, I would ban birth control for unmarried people. You’d have to be married to get it. Sadly, there would probably be a lot of fraud. I suspect many of our problems are caused by godless YOLOism, and legal reforms can’t fix that.

    What do you imagine would happen if you banned birth control for unmarried people? I’m just asking because I have my own ideas about how that would play out and I find it difficult to imagine that you would like the results.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It sounds like Rosie is a high IQ low testosterone woman who is projecting her own traits onto everyone else.

    In reality, most people are stupid, unconscientious, have animalistic sex drives, and have low impulse control.

    If she banned birth control we'd get even more idiocracy than we already have. High IQ, high conscientiousness, low testosterone people would just practice abstinence. Blacks, hispanics, and low IQ whites would breed at the same rate as they do in the Congo.
  57. @MarkU
    A great pity that the video you posted is not available in the UK, which sketch were you thinking of? I know them all very well.

    It’s the one where Graham Chapman is the put-upon suburban househusband atheist annoyed by the sound of Sunday morning church bells. After inflicting aggressive alliteration on his wife (Terry Jones?), “she” rescues him from his predicament by reminding him of his house-of-worship-seeking-missile.

    The video marker was set for the final silence after the storm when a chuffed Chapman remarks,

    “I’ve always said that there’s nothing an agnostic can’t do if he really doesn’t know whether he believes in anything or not.”

    BTW, you can probably use Tor Browser or a Tor window on Brave browser to end run UK browsing restrictions.

    • Replies: @MarkU
    That is a funny sketch, I remember it fondly. Thanks for the browser tips as well.
  58. @MarkU

    Do you classify a concept of “soul” in the same category as the concepts of “mermaids, faeries, goblins etc”? If so, why? (N.B, the answer, “because I think them all absurd” proves no erudition, only prejudice.)
     
    Quite simply I do not believe stuff without evidence, OK?

    People appear to have no problems accepting other peoples religions as mythology, the Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Norse tales etc were once other peoples religions and they took them seriously. Are you seriously attempting to tell me that you find a need to retain an open mind about the existence of Odin, Thor, Zeus, Jupiter, Horus, Osiris, etc? presumably not. Why doesn't a dismissal of those older religions "prove no erudition, only prejudice"?

    It is widely held to be impossible to prove a negative, the onus is not on me to prove that souls do not exist. The existence of souls is simply a hypothesis, one for which there is no discernible evidence. To use an unsupported hypothesis to make ethical decisions in the real world is quite simply ridiculous.

    “It is widely held to be impossible to prove a negative”

    True. But then why proceed as if you had done so?

    “Why doesn’t a dismissal of those older religions “prove no erudition, only prejudice”?”

    You’re right. It doesn’t.

    “To use an unsupported hypothesis to make ethical decisions in the real world is quite simply ridiculous.”

    I agree. Nevertheless, I estimate that upwards of 99.9% of ethical decisions are made just this way.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    True. But then why proceed as if you had done so?
     
    Excellent point.

    IMO, the proper response to the flying spaghetti monster argument is that there is no know phenomenon that demands an explanation that the FSM explains. OTOH, there are things that demand an explanation that God explains. Some call this a "God of the Gaps" fallacy, but this idea strikes me as an attempt to claim that atheism is more coherent and defensible than it really is.

    https://youtu.be/TPwPfPvz5Jo
    , @MarkU
    I am confused as to why you think I am proceeding as if I had proved a negative. I never claimed that I could prove souls don't exist, quite the reverse in fact. There are an enormous amount of things I cannot prove the non-existence of but I see no rational reason that I should take every purely theoretical entity into account when I make a decision. Unless you are claiming that you do so yourself (and I don't believe that for one moment) I suggest that you would generally exhibit the same attitude to unsupported hypotheses that I do.

    The only difference in our position as far as I can see, is that you appear to be religious and I am not. In your perception, the possible existence of souls has to be taken into account, in mine not. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, I thank you for remaining reasonable and civil throughout.

    Best wishes.
  59. @Almost Missouri

    "there must be a place for unilateral divorce, if and only if fault can be shown"
     
    That's how the old legal regime worked.

    "What if a man carouses with women and spends marital resources on bimbos"
     
    Formerly, all jurisdictions recognized adultery as a legitimate cause of a divorce action.

    Perversely, today in some jurisdictions in some circumstances now adultery by itself is not a sufficient cause, though in practice this doesn't matter since all jurisdictions are de facto Unilateral Divorce At Will (or "Unilateral Divorce At No Cause", if you prefer) anyway.

    Perversely, today in some jurisdictions in some circumstances now adultery by itself is not a sufficient cause,

    I actually don’t disagree that a single instance of adultery ought not be considered sufficient cause. People make mistakes.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    The circumstances that would make an insufficient divorce action if we didn't already have Universal Unilateral Divorce At Will are not "single instances" but if the injured partner expresses some form of forgiveness. So the law would penalize non-straying soft-hearted spouses, Christians, the indecisive, etc.

    But as I say, with UUDAW, it is all moot anyway.
    , @Anonymous
    What if it was a single instance that resulted in pregnancy? Do you think a husband should not be granted a divorce in that case? If he is granted a divorce, do you think he should be forced to pay alimony to his ex-wife and towards the raising of her child by another man?
  60. @Almost Missouri

    "It is widely held to be impossible to prove a negative"
     
    True. But then why proceed as if you had done so?

    "Why doesn’t a dismissal of those older religions “prove no erudition, only prejudice”?"
     
    You're right. It doesn't.

    "To use an unsupported hypothesis to make ethical decisions in the real world is quite simply ridiculous."
     
    I agree. Nevertheless, I estimate that upwards of 99.9% of ethical decisions are made just this way.

    True. But then why proceed as if you had done so?

    Excellent point.

    IMO, the proper response to the flying spaghetti monster argument is that there is no know phenomenon that demands an explanation that the FSM explains. OTOH, there are things that demand an explanation that God explains. Some call this a “God of the Gaps” fallacy, but this idea strikes me as an attempt to claim that atheism is more coherent and defensible than it really is.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Some call this a “God of the Gaps” fallacy, but this idea strikes me as an attempt to claim that atheism is more coherent and defensible than it really is.
     
    Yes, as your video points out, it's not really the Gaps; it's everything else. Of course this idea is not new. It goes back at least to Thomas Aquinas, if not to Aristotle.

    One of the dismaying things about modern atheists is how poor is their understanding of what they claim to have refuted. They imagine themselves to be bold and clever iconoclasts, but in reality they are simply champions inside their self-enclosed bubble of ignorance.
    , @Mr. Rational
    Liars making videos for the innumerate.  Seen it ALL before.
    , @MarkU
    Oh no not intelligent design, you do realise that stuff is actually weaker than the original creation myth?

    Allow me to explain.

    There are two possibilities, either you believe in evolution or you don't.

    If you don't believe in evolution then you have a problem explaining the fossil record. An adherent of the creation myth will presumably argue that either the fossil record was created by God (to test our faith) or by Satan to confuse us (or something similar) Either way, this is pure creation myth stuff and needs no intellectualising at all, the argument is "I can't believe that the world I see around me happened as a naturally occurring thing, therefore I believe in a creator" This point of view is at least internally consistent, I don't agree with it of course but such is life.

    So what has the "intelligent design" team brought to the party? what is their take on evolution and the fossil record?

    If they don't believe in evolution and the fossil record they are in exactly the same boat as the creation myth people and all they have brought is a a load of pseudo-intellectual fluff to make it all sound rational and sciencey and they still have the fossil record to explain away.

    If the "intelligent design" adherents do believe in evolution that is where the fun really begins. In this case we have the rather awkward question of when exactly the designing was being done.

    The first living things we know about are the archaea (previously called archaebacteria) followed by prokaryotes, and this is all the life the planet had for billions of years. Much later we had the eukaryotes (complete with endosymbiosis) then multicellular creatures and cell differentiation. vertebrates and invertebrates, then a well defined progression, fish, amphibians, reptiles and finally birds and mammals, eventually hominids.

    So did God design the archaea and let nature run its course? That leaves a lot of added complexity coming into existence without a hand at the helm, which completely contradicts the whole "intelligent design" philosophy. (hopefully we can leave that option out)

    Or perhaps God was designing all the way, starting with the archaea and spent the next two billion years or so tweaking and re-tweaking prokaryotes (that must have been a great deal of fun for him/her/it) before moving on to more complex things.

    Why go through all that rigmarole if it could be mammals week one? why bother with all the creatures that turned out to be evolutionary dead ends? That makes no sense to me.

    If I were you I would stick with the basic creation myth.
  61. @Mr. Rational

    courts absolutely ought to have discretion too what is just in individual cases.
     
    Except you mean "in every case", meaning "according to the prejudice of the judge... and which divorce lawyers gave him campaign contributions."

    Suppose you are 25 years old and you marry a man with a paid-off house. He dumps you when you’re 35 and replaces you with a younger woman.

    Do you really think she isn’t entitled to a share of the house?

     
    Her?  Fuck, no.  He brought it in, she contributed nothing to it, she lived in it rent-free; she deserves no part of it.  If they had children together the children have a right to live in the house, but she does not.  If women can shit-can a spouse they are tired of, men can too.  Fair's fair.

    But note, I said "someone seeking a no-fault divorce".  If there's infidelity or other abuse, the at-fault party should be at risk of losing things.  Otherwise property should not be in play, and should not be incentive to seek divorce as a means of personal enrichment.

    Take away the economic incentives (and means to pay the lawyers), and there will be a lot less divorce.

    Except you mean “in every case”, meaning “according to the prejudice of the judge… and which divorce lawyers gave him campaign contributions.”

    This strikes me as hysterical paranoia TBH. Nonetheless, if you are correct, the solution is to stop the campaign donations, not eliminate judicial discretion, which would create far more travesties than it would prevent.

  62. @Rosie

    Perversely, today in some jurisdictions in some circumstances now adultery by itself is not a sufficient cause,
     
    I actually don't disagree that a single instance of adultery ought not be considered sufficient cause. People make mistakes.

    The circumstances that would make an insufficient divorce action if we didn’t already have Universal Unilateral Divorce At Will are not “single instances” but if the injured partner expresses some form of forgiveness. So the law would penalize non-straying soft-hearted spouses, Christians, the indecisive, etc.

    But as I say, with UUDAW, it is all moot anyway.

  63. @Rosie

    True. But then why proceed as if you had done so?
     
    Excellent point.

    IMO, the proper response to the flying spaghetti monster argument is that there is no know phenomenon that demands an explanation that the FSM explains. OTOH, there are things that demand an explanation that God explains. Some call this a "God of the Gaps" fallacy, but this idea strikes me as an attempt to claim that atheism is more coherent and defensible than it really is.

    https://youtu.be/TPwPfPvz5Jo

    Some call this a “God of the Gaps” fallacy, but this idea strikes me as an attempt to claim that atheism is more coherent and defensible than it really is.

    Yes, as your video points out, it’s not really the Gaps; it’s everything else. Of course this idea is not new. It goes back at least to Thomas Aquinas, if not to Aristotle.

    One of the dismaying things about modern atheists is how poor is their understanding of what they claim to have refuted. They imagine themselves to be bold and clever iconoclasts, but in reality they are simply champions inside their self-enclosed bubble of ignorance.

  64. @Mr. Rational

    courts absolutely ought to have discretion too what is just in individual cases.
     
    Except you mean "in every case", meaning "according to the prejudice of the judge... and which divorce lawyers gave him campaign contributions."

    Suppose you are 25 years old and you marry a man with a paid-off house. He dumps you when you’re 35 and replaces you with a younger woman.

    Do you really think she isn’t entitled to a share of the house?

     
    Her?  Fuck, no.  He brought it in, she contributed nothing to it, she lived in it rent-free; she deserves no part of it.  If they had children together the children have a right to live in the house, but she does not.  If women can shit-can a spouse they are tired of, men can too.  Fair's fair.

    But note, I said "someone seeking a no-fault divorce".  If there's infidelity or other abuse, the at-fault party should be at risk of losing things.  Otherwise property should not be in play, and should not be incentive to seek divorce as a means of personal enrichment.

    Take away the economic incentives (and means to pay the lawyers), and there will be a lot less divorce.

    It is increasingly not possible to use divorce for enrichment.

    Divorce laws vary both in practice and in theory from state to state regarding custody and child support.  Contrary to the memes, there’s been a major shift towards practical joint custody (each parent gets 50% physical custody of the children) in some states, particularly when both mother and father work outside the home and earn similar incomes. The latter arrangement, incidentally, now represents a majority of all married households with children under 15.

    There is a marriage penalty in that many states pay more child support to women who have children out of wedlock with multiple fathers compared to having the same number of children with one man.

    There is a lot of talk about wives being sold divorce and that is probably true to some degree, but in practice, what’s being sold more frequently is the idea that a woman can use her out of wedlock child to get money specifically if she has no relationship (beyond the most temporary) with the father. Married women breaking up their marriages increasingly still have to co-parent and are cut off from child support in more and more jurisdictions, including housewives being expected to get a job and receive minimal child support or alimony.

    Most women are ignorant of divorce and child support regulations in any state, including the one they live in. This includes foreign women who are here on work visas or who became citizens some other way. And most of the ones who aren’t find it more profitable in every sense of the term to be married than to divorce.  Lawyer’s fees eat up a lot of the money with women who are savvy and married to someone with a big salary and/or net worth and then they are sad that they didn’t get one million dollars but only three hundred thousand. Long story short, a guy has to make a LOT of money and be EXTREMELY improvident in his marriage choices to be frivorced to the tune of minimal custody and maximal child support. It is just not usual or common for a wife to break up her marriage to a guy making 80k when she makes 60k or 40k and 25k. And when she does, it’s not usual for him to have most of his pay imputed as child support.  What is increasingly common in such divorce scenarios is a very modest amount of child support (much closer to a car payment per month than a mortgage) and 33-50% visitation on his end.

    https://thepracticalconservative.wordpress.com/real-divorce-information/

    Got to give it to modern egalitarian feminism (a la Sweden) that men are at least seen as able to do 50% of parenting, not just be “Sunday dads” (I knew a divorced Swede whose daughter lived with him for 15 days straight each month.)

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Married women breaking up their marriages increasingly still have to co-parent and are cut off from child support in more and more jurisdictions, including housewives being expected to get a job and receive minimal child support or alimony.
     
    Then feminists use their sad stories to discourage women from adopting a traditional way of life.

    Winners:
    Men who want to replace their wives.
    High earning career women.

    Losers:
    Homemakers
    Women who would like to be homemakers
    Men who want a lifelong marriage to a SAHM
  65. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:
    @Almost Missouri

    "Men: Women shouldn’t have access to birth control!"
     
    Other than a few hardcore Catholics—who believe no one, man or women—should have access to birth control, plus a small subculture of the small rightwing subculture, in other words, less than 2% of the male population, I don't know any men who say this.

    "Men: Only losers marry their baby’s mother! Cool guys fuck random broads and leave, even if they get pregnant! Sticking around and being a father is beta!"
     
    I don't know any non-black men who say this. And the black men I know who do say this use different nomenclature.

    "Also men: Wanna f***?"
     
    As the holders of a cheap and plentiful biological good, men are naturally always looking for takers.

    As the holders of a scarce and expensive biological good, women are naturally hesitant and coquettish in bestowing their favors.

    Such is life.

    Civilized cultures may domesticate these facts with customs, orderly cultures may rule these facts with laws, artistic cultures may embellish these facts baroquely, but the underlying facts remain.

    Small? Subculture?

    It seems like it’s 50% of all men, judging by the amount of these types of comments you see on the internet.

    It really does seem like these days, 50% or more of white men are identifying as “alt-right” “PUA” “MRA” or similar. Just look at the internet comments on manosphere forums, blogs, social media, etc.

    As for my second statement, don’t look at what men say. Look at what men do, just as you look at what women do. Almost all black and hispanic men have the “Cool guys fuck random broads and leave, even if they get pregnant! Sticking around and being a father is beta!” attitude. Almost all prole white men have this attitude. If you don’t know any men with this attitude, you must only be acquainted with MMC, UMC, and UC white men. And Jewish/Asian men.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "It seems like it’s 50% of all men, judging by the amount of these types of comments you see on the internet. ... It really does seem like these days.... Just look at the internet comments on manosphere forums, blogs, social media, etc."
     
    I hope you're not doing any political polling based on internet comments. We're mostly outliers and fanatics.

    "If you don’t know any men with this attitude, you must only be acquainted with MMC, UMC, and UC white men. And Jewish/Asian men."
     
    You are correct that I know fewer underclass whites than of other classes. Due to my geographic history, most of the underclass I know are various swarthies.

    OTOH, inasmuch as there is a general first world shortage of feminine women, a prole class white woman (or any other color for that matter) who does not want the prole white male (or any other color) attitude can probably find a spot with a middle class white guy (or Asian or Jew) as they are underserved. And getting very thirsty. There is a certain culture shock to overcome, which might be why this cross-class hookup seems to happen more often alongside a cross-cultural hookup: in that case (e.g, Latina/white guy) the partners are already expecting a culture gap. Prole white / middle class white have certain pre-existing expectations of each other with no language or cultural barrier to buffer it.
  66. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:
    @SFG
    Men: Women shouldn’t have access to birth control!
    Men: Only losers marry their baby’s mother! Cool guys fuck random broads and leave, even if they get pregnant! Sticking around and being a father is beta!
    Also men: Wanna f***?


    That's 1) socially conservative men, 2) very irresponsible men, and...3) practically all men.

    1. Men who are “socially far right” now comprise like 50% of all men. Want proof? Just look at the comments on “alt-right”, “PUA” and “MRA” blogs and forums.

    2. “Very irresponsible men” would include almost all black and hispanic men, as well as the bottom 59% of white men. To be fair, the absolute majority of women are just as irresponsible. What I’m trying to get at is that low IQ irresponsible people are way more common than high IQ responsible people.

  67. @Toronto Russian
    It is increasingly not possible to use divorce for enrichment.

    Divorce laws vary both in practice and in theory from state to state regarding custody and child support.  Contrary to the memes, there’s been a major shift towards practical joint custody (each parent gets 50% physical custody of the children) in some states, particularly when both mother and father work outside the home and earn similar incomes. The latter arrangement, incidentally, now represents a majority of all married households with children under 15.
     

    There is a marriage penalty in that many states pay more child support to women who have children out of wedlock with multiple fathers compared to having the same number of children with one man.
     

    There is a lot of talk about wives being sold divorce and that is probably true to some degree, but in practice, what’s being sold more frequently is the idea that a woman can use her out of wedlock child to get money specifically if she has no relationship (beyond the most temporary) with the father. Married women breaking up their marriages increasingly still have to co-parent and are cut off from child support in more and more jurisdictions, including housewives being expected to get a job and receive minimal child support or alimony.
     

    Most women are ignorant of divorce and child support regulations in any state, including the one they live in. This includes foreign women who are here on work visas or who became citizens some other way. And most of the ones who aren’t find it more profitable in every sense of the term to be married than to divorce.  Lawyer’s fees eat up a lot of the money with women who are savvy and married to someone with a big salary and/or net worth and then they are sad that they didn’t get one million dollars but only three hundred thousand. Long story short, a guy has to make a LOT of money and be EXTREMELY improvident in his marriage choices to be frivorced to the tune of minimal custody and maximal child support. It is just not usual or common for a wife to break up her marriage to a guy making 80k when she makes 60k or 40k and 25k. And when she does, it’s not usual for him to have most of his pay imputed as child support.  What is increasingly common in such divorce scenarios is a very modest amount of child support (much closer to a car payment per month than a mortgage) and 33-50% visitation on his end.
     
    https://thepracticalconservative.wordpress.com/real-divorce-information/

    Got to give it to modern egalitarian feminism (a la Sweden) that men are at least seen as able to do 50% of parenting, not just be "Sunday dads" (I knew a divorced Swede whose daughter lived with him for 15 days straight each month.)

    Married women breaking up their marriages increasingly still have to co-parent and are cut off from child support in more and more jurisdictions, including housewives being expected to get a job and receive minimal child support or alimony.

    Then feminists use their sad stories to discourage women from adopting a traditional way of life.

    Winners:
    Men who want to replace their wives.
    High earning career women.

    Losers:
    Homemakers
    Women who would like to be homemakers
    Men who want a lifelong marriage to a SAHM

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yep.

    I am a twentysomething woman who would like to be a homemaker. Just like my mother, who took care of my brother and I when we were little. She did eventually start working full time, but that was after my father became ill and my brother and I became legal adults.

    I am terrified at the prospect of marriage and motherhood, because I don't know how the future plays out. What if the traditional family breaks down even further? What if my future husband leaves me because he's bored, or he found a younger woman?

    Divorce courts favoring women in money only matters if you're a poor gold digger. I don't need money from a husband. If I only wanted money I'd just live off my mother/father/brother's wealth forever. I want a husband for life and a successful child. In fact, a child can only achieve full life success if she/he comes from a traditional family.
  68. @Almost Missouri

    "Would you describe a disbelief in mermaids, faeries, goblins etc as a ‘prejudice against certain facts’ I doubt it very much."
     
    Do you classify a concept of "soul" in the same category as the concepts of "mermaids, faeries, goblins etc"? If so, why? (N.B, the answer, "because I think them all absurd" proves no erudition, only prejudice.)

    "I was just highlighting the absurdities that can result if you have adopted the theist viewpoint."
     
    Perhaps that was your intention, but the result was highlighting absurdities that can result from adopting the atheist viewpoint.

    Do you classify a concept of “soul” in the same category as the concepts of “mermaids, faeries, goblins etc”? If so, why?

    The concept of faeries was invoked to explain the phenomenon of birth defects (“changelings”).  One typical response was to “return” the defective children to the faeries, which meant death by exposure or predators.

    We know how most birth defects come about now.  Faeries are not taken seriously any more; they came from a logical fallacy, inventing explanations to fill a space left by ignorance.

    We have no firm evidence that there is a “soul” that exists separately from the brain, or continues to exist after the death of same.  We do have firm evidence that disruption of the operation of certain parts of the brain produces “out of body” experiences, because we can reproduce them under laboratory conditions.

    Few people really want to cease existing.  The idea of a soul and an afterlife is attractive.  So is the idea of blaming faeries for birth defects actually caused by one’s own negligence, such as consuming teratogens early in pregnancy.  That doesn’t make it true.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    The concept of faeries was invoked to explain the phenomenon of birth defects
     
    The concept of melons grown on low land was once invoked to explain the phenomenon of malaria. Now we know malaria comes from the nearly invisible dæmons of the order Plasmodium falciparum. Therefore we also know that lowland melons are a superstition and don't really exist.

    a logical fallacy
     
    oh wait...

    We have no firm evidence that there is a "soul" that exists
     
    Well, that's a disappointment. Here I thought I was communicating with "Mr. Rational", but it turns out it's all just clumps of cells bumping together meaninglessly in the void ...

    disruption of the operation of certain parts of the brain produces "out of body" experiences
     
    Like dreams?

    Few people really want to cease existing.
     
    Personally, I would. But my creditors would be pissed.
    , @Rosie

    The idea of a soul and an afterlife is attractive.
     
    It's evidently not very attractive to you. Why would you make it a point to be particularly skeptical of something that you would like to believe? If anything, that a belief is attractive would seem to warrant the benefit of the doubt.

    Your approach doesn't seem very rational to me, Mr. Rational.
    , @Rosie

    Faeries are not taken seriously any more; they came from a logical fallacy, inventing explanations to fill a space left by ignorance.
     
    The problem with the God of the Gaps charge is that it demands that theists assume that atheists will eventually find a natural explanation for everything without them ever having done so. It's a kind of false appeal to inevitability.
    , @Intelligent Dasein

    We have no firm evidence that there is a “soul” that exists
     
    Bodies are irrefutable evidence that souls exist. The soul is of itself and per se the form of the body. Without the soul the body would have no identity or substance, e.g. a real horse would be no different from a shape of a horse formed by clouds. It is the soul that makes living beings substantial realities. You will note that this definition has nothing to do with "consciousness" (a bullshit modern contrivance of a term) or immortality. It is a simple question of matter and form.
  69. @Rosie

    True. But then why proceed as if you had done so?
     
    Excellent point.

    IMO, the proper response to the flying spaghetti monster argument is that there is no know phenomenon that demands an explanation that the FSM explains. OTOH, there are things that demand an explanation that God explains. Some call this a "God of the Gaps" fallacy, but this idea strikes me as an attempt to claim that atheism is more coherent and defensible than it really is.

    https://youtu.be/TPwPfPvz5Jo

    Liars making videos for the innumerate.  Seen it ALL before.

  70. @Mr. Rational

    Do you classify a concept of “soul” in the same category as the concepts of “mermaids, faeries, goblins etc”? If so, why?
     
    The concept of faeries was invoked to explain the phenomenon of birth defects ("changelings").  One typical response was to "return" the defective children to the faeries, which meant death by exposure or predators.

    We know how most birth defects come about now.  Faeries are not taken seriously any more; they came from a logical fallacy, inventing explanations to fill a space left by ignorance.

    We have no firm evidence that there is a "soul" that exists separately from the brain, or continues to exist after the death of same.  We do have firm evidence that disruption of the operation of certain parts of the brain produces "out of body" experiences, because we can reproduce them under laboratory conditions.

    Few people really want to cease existing.  The idea of a soul and an afterlife is attractive.  So is the idea of blaming faeries for birth defects actually caused by one's own negligence, such as consuming teratogens early in pregnancy.  That doesn't make it true.

    The concept of faeries was invoked to explain the phenomenon of birth defects

    The concept of melons grown on low land was once invoked to explain the phenomenon of malaria. Now we know malaria comes from the nearly invisible dæmons of the order Plasmodium falciparum. Therefore we also know that lowland melons are a superstition and don’t really exist.

    a logical fallacy

    oh wait…

    We have no firm evidence that there is a “soul” that exists

    Well, that’s a disappointment. Here I thought I was communicating with “Mr. Rational”, but it turns out it’s all just clumps of cells bumping together meaninglessly in the void …

    disruption of the operation of certain parts of the brain produces “out of body” experiences

    Like dreams?

    Few people really want to cease existing.

    Personally, I would. But my creditors would be pissed.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    The concept of melons grown on low land was once invoked to explain the phenomenon of malaria. Now we know malaria comes from the nearly invisible dæmons of the order Plasmodium falciparum. Therefore we also know that lowland melons are a superstition and don’t really exist.
     
    Now you make me wonder what kind of disinformation sites you read.  "Malaria" comes from the Italian "mala aria", literally "bad air":  nothing whatsoever to do with melons.  Bad-smelling swamps and mosquitoes do tend to go together, so it was understandable that people could leap from association to mistaken causation.  It's still an example of faulty reasoning, though.

    Well, that’s a disappointment. Here I thought I was communicating with “Mr. Rational”, but it turns out it’s all just clumps of cells bumping together meaninglessly in the void …
     
    Yet here I am, the same either way.  Just because you didn't understand the cause of a thing, does that change what it is?  Further, if there's this "soul" that drives everything and the brain is just meat, why does brain damage cause personality changes?

    I find cause for cautious optimism in the knowledge that "clumps of cells bumping together" can pass the Turing test, write sonnets and send fellow clumps to the Moon.  We can't do much about omnipotent beings who create and either condemn or perpetually reward "souls" based on criteria we can't even come to agreement about, but clumps of cells can be preserved, repaired, maybe even their functions duplicated in more durable media.  And that last bit offers you a chance to prove your case.  If one has duplicated the functional organization of a brain*, yet the personality does not flow along with it, you've proven that there is an ineffable "something else" in play.  If the personality does transfer happily, well... it wouldn't be the first time that humans made faulty associations and came to erroneous conclusions.

    * FTR, I don't expect to live that long.

  71. @Mr. Rational

    Do you classify a concept of “soul” in the same category as the concepts of “mermaids, faeries, goblins etc”? If so, why?
     
    The concept of faeries was invoked to explain the phenomenon of birth defects ("changelings").  One typical response was to "return" the defective children to the faeries, which meant death by exposure or predators.

    We know how most birth defects come about now.  Faeries are not taken seriously any more; they came from a logical fallacy, inventing explanations to fill a space left by ignorance.

    We have no firm evidence that there is a "soul" that exists separately from the brain, or continues to exist after the death of same.  We do have firm evidence that disruption of the operation of certain parts of the brain produces "out of body" experiences, because we can reproduce them under laboratory conditions.

    Few people really want to cease existing.  The idea of a soul and an afterlife is attractive.  So is the idea of blaming faeries for birth defects actually caused by one's own negligence, such as consuming teratogens early in pregnancy.  That doesn't make it true.

    The idea of a soul and an afterlife is attractive.

    It’s evidently not very attractive to you. Why would you make it a point to be particularly skeptical of something that you would like to believe? If anything, that a belief is attractive would seem to warrant the benefit of the doubt.

    Your approach doesn’t seem very rational to me, Mr. Rational.

  72. @Mr. Rational

    Do you classify a concept of “soul” in the same category as the concepts of “mermaids, faeries, goblins etc”? If so, why?
     
    The concept of faeries was invoked to explain the phenomenon of birth defects ("changelings").  One typical response was to "return" the defective children to the faeries, which meant death by exposure or predators.

    We know how most birth defects come about now.  Faeries are not taken seriously any more; they came from a logical fallacy, inventing explanations to fill a space left by ignorance.

    We have no firm evidence that there is a "soul" that exists separately from the brain, or continues to exist after the death of same.  We do have firm evidence that disruption of the operation of certain parts of the brain produces "out of body" experiences, because we can reproduce them under laboratory conditions.

    Few people really want to cease existing.  The idea of a soul and an afterlife is attractive.  So is the idea of blaming faeries for birth defects actually caused by one's own negligence, such as consuming teratogens early in pregnancy.  That doesn't make it true.

    Faeries are not taken seriously any more; they came from a logical fallacy, inventing explanations to fill a space left by ignorance.

    The problem with the God of the Gaps charge is that it demands that theists assume that atheists will eventually find a natural explanation for everything without them ever having done so. It’s a kind of false appeal to inevitability.

  73. @MarkU
    Given that this thread has been almost entirely hijacked by a discussion about divorce and alimony, I thought I should bring it back on topic.

    As an atheist I have a clear cut moral standpoint, which is that a foetus (proper spelling) starts off as a bundle of undifferentiated cells (not a person) but ends up as a person. Essentially, early stage abortions are not a moral issue as far as I am concerned but late stage abortions definitely are. So where should the line be drawn? As I am not God (particularly as there is no such animal anyway) I am modest enough to admit that that is NOT my call but my own attitude is that some sort of line should be drawn. I fully agree that any determination of where that line should be drawn is liable to be somewhat arbitrary but that is just a fact of life. I reject utterly the line of argument that conflates potential with actuality, that line leads to complete insanity (every sperm is sacred etc)

    I find it somewhat curious that the same people who complain about the rewarding of womb productivity (not without justification in my opinion) should be amongst those complaining when pregnancies are not brought to term, I would have thought they would approve.

    To sum up, I do not believe it is my right (nor anybody else's) to compel a woman to have a child she does not want, though I do believe that society has a right to demand that termination is done in a timely fashion if it is to be done at all. I do not believe that what the world needs right now is more babies brought up by irresponsible mothers who didn't want them in the first place and likely to grow up with the same bad attitudes that their parents had.

    “I find it somewhat curious that the same people who complain about the rewarding of womb productivity (not without justification in my opinion) should be amongst those complaining when pregnancies are not brought to term, I would have thought they would approve.”

    I’m not really sure why you would find it curious; you’re conflating two separate issues.

    Just like the people who make the argument that it is hypocritical to oppose abortion but support the death penalty. (FD: I am against both but for different reasons because they are different issues.) That contention is built upon the faulty premise that all killing is the same regardless of context. It isn’t all the same, and anyone who says killing an unborn fetus is no different morally than executing a convicted murderer is either a liar or a fool.

    So those of us complaining about “the rewarding of womb productivity” do so because, in the most simple of terms, rewarding poor behavior gives us more poor behavior. We actually realize it’s not the unborn child’s fault that its parents are stupid, which is why “we” don’t approve of killing it after the fact. We also realize that shutting off the gibs will likely change the behavior of at least some sexually reckless individuals, thus resulting in less abortions to follow.

    • Replies: @MarkU
    I'm not really finding a lot to disagree with in your response. You have an internally consistent point of view and though I am not in full agreement with you I can cheerfully agree to disagree. You have successfully made the case that one can disapprove of excessive 'womb productivity' but still be opposed to abortion without being internally inconsistent.

    Our only difference (as far as I can make out) is that I don't see early term abortion as particularly problematic, whereas you appear to be opposed completely. You ought to be aware that there are forms of contraception which are nothing less than very early term abortions, the morning-after pill is one of them.
  74. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Perversely, today in some jurisdictions in some circumstances now adultery by itself is not a sufficient cause,
     
    I actually don't disagree that a single instance of adultery ought not be considered sufficient cause. People make mistakes.

    What if it was a single instance that resulted in pregnancy? Do you think a husband should not be granted a divorce in that case? If he is granted a divorce, do you think he should be forced to pay alimony to his ex-wife and towards the raising of her child by another man?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    What if it was a single instance that resulted in pregnancy? Do you think a husband should not be granted a divorce in that case? If he is granted a divorce, do you think he should be forced to pay alimony to his ex-wife and towards the raising of her child by another man?
     
    Yes, he should be granted a divorce. Whether he should be forced to pay alimony depends on whether his own douchebaggery was the root cause of the marital dysfunction that led to the infidelity. IOW, if she would have been entitled to divorce and alimony irrespective of the infidelity, then yes.
  75. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:
    @MarkU

    If I had the power, I would ban birth control for unmarried people. You’d have to be married to get it. Sadly, there would probably be a lot of fraud. I suspect many of our problems are caused by godless YOLOism, and legal reforms can’t fix that.
     
    What do you imagine would happen if you banned birth control for unmarried people? I'm just asking because I have my own ideas about how that would play out and I find it difficult to imagine that you would like the results.

    It sounds like Rosie is a high IQ low testosterone woman who is projecting her own traits onto everyone else.

    In reality, most people are stupid, unconscientious, have animalistic sex drives, and have low impulse control.

    If she banned birth control we’d get even more idiocracy than we already have. High IQ, high conscientiousness, low testosterone people would just practice abstinence. Blacks, hispanics, and low IQ whites would breed at the same rate as they do in the Congo.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    If she banned birth control we’d get even more idiocracy than we already have. High IQ, high conscientiousness, low testosterone people would just practice abstinence. Blacks, hispanics, and low IQ whites would breed at the same rate as they do in the Congo.
     
    I don't know. Birth control can actually be used in a family-enhancing way. There was a time when a man couldn't marry until he could support children. The result of this was very ugly for women. Men will find a way. This usually meant getting seeing prostitutes, and unscrupulous men thought nothing of putting their wives, sisters, and even daughters on the streets.

    With birth control, a young man can marry a young woman and they can work their way towards financial wellbeing together, but only if they have access to birth control.
    , @Oreo
    She has said that she's overweight and from a working class background, which tend not to correlate with high IQ. She's also quite an active and aggressive commenter, which is not a low testosterone characteristic.
    , @Twinkie

    In reality, most people are stupid, unconscientious, have animalistic sex drives, and have low impulse control.
     
    That's almost verbatim Rosie's description of women (an presumably of herself).
    , @Audacious Epigone
    What's the end game, then? These traits you put forward as desirable are all negatively correlated with current fertility, and people who have them are birthing below replacement.
  76. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Married women breaking up their marriages increasingly still have to co-parent and are cut off from child support in more and more jurisdictions, including housewives being expected to get a job and receive minimal child support or alimony.
     
    Then feminists use their sad stories to discourage women from adopting a traditional way of life.

    Winners:
    Men who want to replace their wives.
    High earning career women.

    Losers:
    Homemakers
    Women who would like to be homemakers
    Men who want a lifelong marriage to a SAHM

    Yep.

    I am a twentysomething woman who would like to be a homemaker. Just like my mother, who took care of my brother and I when we were little. She did eventually start working full time, but that was after my father became ill and my brother and I became legal adults.

    I am terrified at the prospect of marriage and motherhood, because I don’t know how the future plays out. What if the traditional family breaks down even further? What if my future husband leaves me because he’s bored, or he found a younger woman?

    Divorce courts favoring women in money only matters if you’re a poor gold digger. I don’t need money from a husband. If I only wanted money I’d just live off my mother/father/brother’s wealth forever. I want a husband for life and a successful child. In fact, a child can only achieve full life success if she/he comes from a traditional family.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I am a twentysomething woman who would like to be a homemaker.
     
    OK I can give you some advice.

    First, talk to a lawyer. Yes, now. I'm serious. It may calm your fears, or it may help you determine what sorts of questions you need to ask any potential mates.

    Second, remember, if you achieve your goal, do all the good you can, for whomever you can, whenever you can. Other SAHM almost always have husbands with good jobs. If you prove your worth in volunteer work, you will have a network of sympathetic friends who can help you get back on your feet should the unthinkable happen. This is tremendously important.

    Third, be a good wife.

    If you do these things, you may find that your risk is well within tolerable limits. Or you may not, in which case, you might want to consider a family-friendly career that allows you to find that balance you seek.

    In any case, don't be afraid. Decide on a goal and pursue it! You can't control the outcome; you can only make the best decisions you can with the information that you have. And good luck and prayers!
    , @Almost Missouri

    "What if the traditional family breaks down even further?"
     
    It probably will, given all the forces arrayed against it. That doesn't mean that your family has to break down, however.

    "What if my future husband leaves me because he’s bored, or he found a younger woman?"
     
    Well, "bored" is at least partly for you to determine. A normal family-oriented man should not be too difficult to interest in his own family, wife included. This doesn't mean doing whatever the latest issue of Cosmo suggests, it just means making an orderly and pleasant domestic life, you know, a home.

    With the ongoing mass destruction of young women's femininity, a younger woman is an unlikely threat, especially if your husband is older than you, so you already are his "younger woman". The ancient rule of thumb is that you should marry your husband at double the result of your age minus seven years. So if you are 25, a 36-ish husband will be unlikely to stray to anyone younger.

    "I want a husband for life and a successful child. In fact, a child can only achieve full life success if she/he comes from a traditional family"
     
    Being around other people who want the same things you do (trad families, successful children) is helpful and healthful. Look for a neighborhood/community of similarly inclined people.
  77. @Almost Missouri

    The concept of faeries was invoked to explain the phenomenon of birth defects
     
    The concept of melons grown on low land was once invoked to explain the phenomenon of malaria. Now we know malaria comes from the nearly invisible dæmons of the order Plasmodium falciparum. Therefore we also know that lowland melons are a superstition and don't really exist.

    a logical fallacy
     
    oh wait...

    We have no firm evidence that there is a "soul" that exists
     
    Well, that's a disappointment. Here I thought I was communicating with "Mr. Rational", but it turns out it's all just clumps of cells bumping together meaninglessly in the void ...

    disruption of the operation of certain parts of the brain produces "out of body" experiences
     
    Like dreams?

    Few people really want to cease existing.
     
    Personally, I would. But my creditors would be pissed.

    The concept of melons grown on low land was once invoked to explain the phenomenon of malaria. Now we know malaria comes from the nearly invisible dæmons of the order Plasmodium falciparum. Therefore we also know that lowland melons are a superstition and don’t really exist.

    Now you make me wonder what kind of disinformation sites you read.  “Malaria” comes from the Italian “mala aria”, literally “bad air”:  nothing whatsoever to do with melons.  Bad-smelling swamps and mosquitoes do tend to go together, so it was understandable that people could leap from association to mistaken causation.  It’s still an example of faulty reasoning, though.

    Well, that’s a disappointment. Here I thought I was communicating with “Mr. Rational”, but it turns out it’s all just clumps of cells bumping together meaninglessly in the void …

    Yet here I am, the same either way.  Just because you didn’t understand the cause of a thing, does that change what it is?  Further, if there’s this “soul” that drives everything and the brain is just meat, why does brain damage cause personality changes?

    I find cause for cautious optimism in the knowledge that “clumps of cells bumping together” can pass the Turing test, write sonnets and send fellow clumps to the Moon.  We can’t do much about omnipotent beings who create and either condemn or perpetually reward “souls” based on criteria we can’t even come to agreement about, but clumps of cells can be preserved, repaired, maybe even their functions duplicated in more durable media.  And that last bit offers you a chance to prove your case.  If one has duplicated the functional organization of a brain*, yet the personality does not flow along with it, you’ve proven that there is an ineffable “something else” in play.  If the personality does transfer happily, well… it wouldn’t be the first time that humans made faulty associations and came to erroneous conclusions.

    * FTR, I don’t expect to live that long.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    The point of the faeries/birth defect, melons/malaria thing was that while the former of each pair might not in fact be the cause of the latter, that is not a disproof of the existence of the former. You can substitute "swamp air" for "melons" if you like that better.

    Yet here I am
     
    Who is this "I" you speak of?

    Further, if there’s this “soul” that drives everything and the brain is just meat, why does brain damage cause personality changes?
     
    Why does automobile damage cause changes in driving?
  78. @Anonymous

    Yet you wish to enable this behavior by allowing men to walk away from their marriage without any financial consequences.
     
    Most divorces are initiated by women. Only a minority of wealthy men don't suffer major consequences.

    This is precisely why we should get rid of NFD. It enables a great deal of scaremongering about innocent men being “divorced raped,” just because of some boilerplate in a court order that bears no relationship to the reality of the situation.
     
    But the reality is that most divorces would not satisfy the traditional criteria of "fault" such as adultery, abuse, and wrongdoing. Most men today who are served divorce papers did not commit adultery, beat their wives, etc. Women divorce them out of "irreconcilable differences".

    And your speculation about what women want is of no import whatsoever.
     
    Most divorces are no-fault divorces and initiated by women, which suggests it is something want.

    But the reality is that most divorces would not satisfy the traditional criteria of “fault” such as adultery, abuse, and wrongdoing. Most men today who are served divorce papers did not commit adultery, beat their wives, etc. Women divorce them out of “irreconcilable differences”.

    You could give Twinkie a run for his money for dishonesty, and that’s saying something. Adultery and wife-beating are actually relatively mild offenses. If my husband were to ever go screw some bimbo or bitchslap me once or twice, that would be nothing compared to the constant disrespect, ordering around, and ice-cold indifference I have seen some men inflict on their wives. This might sound radical to you, but we insist that you be nice to us.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It sounds like you should support no-fault divorce then, since that covers vague offenses like disrespect and "being mean" that aren't crimes or regarded as serious offenses. Accusing someone of disrespect and "being mean" would generally be dismissed as being frivolous in a court of law.
    , @Twinkie

    If my husband were to ever go screw some bimbo or bitchslap me once or twice, that would be nothing compared to...
     
    Do you speak from experience?
  79. @Anonymous
    It sounds like Rosie is a high IQ low testosterone woman who is projecting her own traits onto everyone else.

    In reality, most people are stupid, unconscientious, have animalistic sex drives, and have low impulse control.

    If she banned birth control we'd get even more idiocracy than we already have. High IQ, high conscientiousness, low testosterone people would just practice abstinence. Blacks, hispanics, and low IQ whites would breed at the same rate as they do in the Congo.

    If she banned birth control we’d get even more idiocracy than we already have. High IQ, high conscientiousness, low testosterone people would just practice abstinence. Blacks, hispanics, and low IQ whites would breed at the same rate as they do in the Congo.

    I don’t know. Birth control can actually be used in a family-enhancing way. There was a time when a man couldn’t marry until he could support children. The result of this was very ugly for women. Men will find a way. This usually meant getting seeing prostitutes, and unscrupulous men thought nothing of putting their wives, sisters, and even daughters on the streets.

    With birth control, a young man can marry a young woman and they can work their way towards financial wellbeing together, but only if they have access to birth control.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    unscrupulous men thought nothing of putting their wives, sisters, and even daughters on the streets.

    https://youtu.be/ZaLI1pRL11Y?t=48
  80. @Anonymous
    Yep.

    I am a twentysomething woman who would like to be a homemaker. Just like my mother, who took care of my brother and I when we were little. She did eventually start working full time, but that was after my father became ill and my brother and I became legal adults.

    I am terrified at the prospect of marriage and motherhood, because I don't know how the future plays out. What if the traditional family breaks down even further? What if my future husband leaves me because he's bored, or he found a younger woman?

    Divorce courts favoring women in money only matters if you're a poor gold digger. I don't need money from a husband. If I only wanted money I'd just live off my mother/father/brother's wealth forever. I want a husband for life and a successful child. In fact, a child can only achieve full life success if she/he comes from a traditional family.

    I am a twentysomething woman who would like to be a homemaker.

    OK I can give you some advice.

    First, talk to a lawyer. Yes, now. I’m serious. It may calm your fears, or it may help you determine what sorts of questions you need to ask any potential mates.

    Second, remember, if you achieve your goal, do all the good you can, for whomever you can, whenever you can. Other SAHM almost always have husbands with good jobs. If you prove your worth in volunteer work, you will have a network of sympathetic friends who can help you get back on your feet should the unthinkable happen. This is tremendously important.

    Third, be a good wife.

    If you do these things, you may find that your risk is well within tolerable limits. Or you may not, in which case, you might want to consider a family-friendly career that allows you to find that balance you seek.

    In any case, don’t be afraid. Decide on a goal and pursue it! You can’t control the outcome; you can only make the best decisions you can with the information that you have. And good luck and prayers!

  81. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    But the reality is that most divorces would not satisfy the traditional criteria of “fault” such as adultery, abuse, and wrongdoing. Most men today who are served divorce papers did not commit adultery, beat their wives, etc. Women divorce them out of “irreconcilable differences”.
     
    You could give Twinkie a run for his money for dishonesty, and that's saying something. Adultery and wife-beating are actually relatively mild offenses. If my husband were to ever go screw some bimbo or bitchslap me once or twice, that would be nothing compared to the constant disrespect, ordering around, and ice-cold indifference I have seen some men inflict on their wives. This might sound radical to you, but we insist that you be nice to us.

    It sounds like you should support no-fault divorce then, since that covers vague offenses like disrespect and “being mean” that aren’t crimes or regarded as serious offenses. Accusing someone of disrespect and “being mean” would generally be dismissed as being frivolous in a court of law.

  82. @Anonymous
    It sounds like Rosie is a high IQ low testosterone woman who is projecting her own traits onto everyone else.

    In reality, most people are stupid, unconscientious, have animalistic sex drives, and have low impulse control.

    If she banned birth control we'd get even more idiocracy than we already have. High IQ, high conscientiousness, low testosterone people would just practice abstinence. Blacks, hispanics, and low IQ whites would breed at the same rate as they do in the Congo.

    She has said that she’s overweight and from a working class background, which tend not to correlate with high IQ. She’s also quite an active and aggressive commenter, which is not a low testosterone characteristic.

  83. @Anonymous
    What if it was a single instance that resulted in pregnancy? Do you think a husband should not be granted a divorce in that case? If he is granted a divorce, do you think he should be forced to pay alimony to his ex-wife and towards the raising of her child by another man?

    What if it was a single instance that resulted in pregnancy? Do you think a husband should not be granted a divorce in that case? If he is granted a divorce, do you think he should be forced to pay alimony to his ex-wife and towards the raising of her child by another man?

    Yes, he should be granted a divorce. Whether he should be forced to pay alimony depends on whether his own douchebaggery was the root cause of the marital dysfunction that led to the infidelity. IOW, if she would have been entitled to divorce and alimony irrespective of the infidelity, then yes.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "Douchebaggery" is not a crime or serious offense, so you'd have to have no-fault, or de facto no-fault, divorce in order to allow divorces for it. One party's crime or misbehavior does not excuse another's, so a husband's "douchebaggery" would not excuse the wife's behavior.

    What about child support payments for the divorced woman and her child by another man? Do you believe she should be entitled to them in addition to alimony?

    The original justification for alimony was that a woman would receive the support she would have received had the marriage continued, in a context where woman had to depend on husbands for material support and divorce was rare and discouraged. That is obviously no longer the context as divorce is now very common and women can be economically independent through employment and have access to welfare. What would be the justification today for alimony and a large share in the ex-husband's assets, especially as divorce is common and no longer taboo, and women form new relationships and marriages after they get divorced?
  84. @Mr. Rational

    The concept of melons grown on low land was once invoked to explain the phenomenon of malaria. Now we know malaria comes from the nearly invisible dæmons of the order Plasmodium falciparum. Therefore we also know that lowland melons are a superstition and don’t really exist.
     
    Now you make me wonder what kind of disinformation sites you read.  "Malaria" comes from the Italian "mala aria", literally "bad air":  nothing whatsoever to do with melons.  Bad-smelling swamps and mosquitoes do tend to go together, so it was understandable that people could leap from association to mistaken causation.  It's still an example of faulty reasoning, though.

    Well, that’s a disappointment. Here I thought I was communicating with “Mr. Rational”, but it turns out it’s all just clumps of cells bumping together meaninglessly in the void …
     
    Yet here I am, the same either way.  Just because you didn't understand the cause of a thing, does that change what it is?  Further, if there's this "soul" that drives everything and the brain is just meat, why does brain damage cause personality changes?

    I find cause for cautious optimism in the knowledge that "clumps of cells bumping together" can pass the Turing test, write sonnets and send fellow clumps to the Moon.  We can't do much about omnipotent beings who create and either condemn or perpetually reward "souls" based on criteria we can't even come to agreement about, but clumps of cells can be preserved, repaired, maybe even their functions duplicated in more durable media.  And that last bit offers you a chance to prove your case.  If one has duplicated the functional organization of a brain*, yet the personality does not flow along with it, you've proven that there is an ineffable "something else" in play.  If the personality does transfer happily, well... it wouldn't be the first time that humans made faulty associations and came to erroneous conclusions.

    * FTR, I don't expect to live that long.

    The point of the faeries/birth defect, melons/malaria thing was that while the former of each pair might not in fact be the cause of the latter, that is not a disproof of the existence of the former. You can substitute “swamp air” for “melons” if you like that better.

    Yet here I am

    Who is this “I” you speak of?

    Further, if there’s this “soul” that drives everything and the brain is just meat, why does brain damage cause personality changes?

    Why does automobile damage cause changes in driving?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    The point of the faeries/birth defect, melons/malaria thing was that while the former of each pair might not in fact be the cause of the latter, that is not a disproof of the existence of the former.
     
    The observation of "changelings" (birth defects) was the reason that the existence of faeries was assumed.

    It turns out that birth defects have a completely natural cause.

    The existence of faeries is now completely without logical support; everything they were supposed to have done is caused by something else.  There are no phenomena which can be attributed to them; they affect nothing, and the initial leap which led to that postulate was shown to be erroneous.  WHY would you continue to claim that they exist?

    Who is this “I” you speak of?
     
    Among other things, someone making it difficult enough for you to hold up your position that you keep having to defend it.

    Why does automobile damage cause changes in driving?
     
    Different cars cause changes in driving even with the same driver.  I thought you were arguing against materialistic explanations, not for them.  Perhaps you should try to elucidate more, because you may not be writing exactly what you wanted to say.
  85. @Rosie

    But the reality is that most divorces would not satisfy the traditional criteria of “fault” such as adultery, abuse, and wrongdoing. Most men today who are served divorce papers did not commit adultery, beat their wives, etc. Women divorce them out of “irreconcilable differences”.
     
    You could give Twinkie a run for his money for dishonesty, and that's saying something. Adultery and wife-beating are actually relatively mild offenses. If my husband were to ever go screw some bimbo or bitchslap me once or twice, that would be nothing compared to the constant disrespect, ordering around, and ice-cold indifference I have seen some men inflict on their wives. This might sound radical to you, but we insist that you be nice to us.

    If my husband were to ever go screw some bimbo or bitchslap me once or twice, that would be nothing compared to…

    Do you speak from experience?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Do you speak from experience?
     
    No.
  86. By the way, if anyone is interested in more data about abortion, try this: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/usa_abortion_by_race.html

    The data shows revealed preferences, not survey opinions.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Thanks.

    Yet another example of why my color schematic is superior to the ones employed by everyone else!
  87. @Anonymous
    Small? Subculture?

    It seems like it's 50% of all men, judging by the amount of these types of comments you see on the internet.

    It really does seem like these days, 50% or more of white men are identifying as "alt-right" "PUA" "MRA" or similar. Just look at the internet comments on manosphere forums, blogs, social media, etc.

    As for my second statement, don't look at what men say. Look at what men do, just as you look at what women do. Almost all black and hispanic men have the "Cool guys fuck random broads and leave, even if they get pregnant! Sticking around and being a father is beta!” attitude. Almost all prole white men have this attitude. If you don't know any men with this attitude, you must only be acquainted with MMC, UMC, and UC white men. And Jewish/Asian men.

    “It seems like it’s 50% of all men, judging by the amount of these types of comments you see on the internet. … It really does seem like these days…. Just look at the internet comments on manosphere forums, blogs, social media, etc.”

    I hope you’re not doing any political polling based on internet comments. We’re mostly outliers and fanatics.

    “If you don’t know any men with this attitude, you must only be acquainted with MMC, UMC, and UC white men. And Jewish/Asian men.”

    You are correct that I know fewer underclass whites than of other classes. Due to my geographic history, most of the underclass I know are various swarthies.

    OTOH, inasmuch as there is a general first world shortage of feminine women, a prole class white woman (or any other color for that matter) who does not want the prole white male (or any other color) attitude can probably find a spot with a middle class white guy (or Asian or Jew) as they are underserved. And getting very thirsty. There is a certain culture shock to overcome, which might be why this cross-class hookup seems to happen more often alongside a cross-cultural hookup: in that case (e.g, Latina/white guy) the partners are already expecting a culture gap. Prole white / middle class white have certain pre-existing expectations of each other with no language or cultural barrier to buffer it.

  88. @Twinkie

    If my husband were to ever go screw some bimbo or bitchslap me once or twice, that would be nothing compared to...
     
    Do you speak from experience?

    Do you speak from experience?

    No.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Then how would you know?
  89. @Rosie

    Do you speak from experience?
     
    No.

    Then how would you know?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Then how would you know?
     
    It's truly appalling what an obnoxious person you are.

    Would you rather be waterboarded, or have your fingernails pulled out? How do you know?
  90. @Twinkie
    Then how would you know?

    Then how would you know?

    It’s truly appalling what an obnoxious person you are.

    Would you rather be waterboarded, or have your fingernails pulled out? How do you know?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    It’s truly appalling what an obnoxious person you are.
     
    Why, because I ask inconvenient questions that poke holes in your moronic statements?

    I've known women who were physically abused ("slapped around") by their husbands. Even though the violence was not life-threatening, they were in constant fear of making mistakes and upsetting their husbands. They felt like they were on "thin ice" everyday. It'd been a relief for them if their husbands merely ordered them around and were indifferent.

    Would you rather be waterboarded, or have your fingernails pulled out? How do you know?
     
    Waterboarded. I've had "simulated drowning" as a part of training. And I had a fingernail unwitting pulled out during Judo practice. The latter took a lot longer to recover from than the former. And you can learn to deal with the former with repeated experience and exposure. Meanwhile, I never want to have a nail pulled out ever again.
  91. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    What if it was a single instance that resulted in pregnancy? Do you think a husband should not be granted a divorce in that case? If he is granted a divorce, do you think he should be forced to pay alimony to his ex-wife and towards the raising of her child by another man?
     
    Yes, he should be granted a divorce. Whether he should be forced to pay alimony depends on whether his own douchebaggery was the root cause of the marital dysfunction that led to the infidelity. IOW, if she would have been entitled to divorce and alimony irrespective of the infidelity, then yes.

    “Douchebaggery” is not a crime or serious offense, so you’d have to have no-fault, or de facto no-fault, divorce in order to allow divorces for it. One party’s crime or misbehavior does not excuse another’s, so a husband’s “douchebaggery” would not excuse the wife’s behavior.

    What about child support payments for the divorced woman and her child by another man? Do you believe she should be entitled to them in addition to alimony?

    The original justification for alimony was that a woman would receive the support she would have received had the marriage continued, in a context where woman had to depend on husbands for material support and divorce was rare and discouraged. That is obviously no longer the context as divorce is now very common and women can be economically independent through employment and have access to welfare. What would be the justification today for alimony and a large share in the ex-husband’s assets, especially as divorce is common and no longer taboo, and women form new relationships and marriages after they get divorced?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    In other words, alimony was originally like an insurance payout for a rare event. Divorce rarely happened, and it happened in a society where women did not have economic independence. Alimony was like an insurance payout for a very rare and unfortunate event.

    But now, divorce is very common, mostly initiated by women, and women have employment opportunities and access to welfare. The original rationale is gone. Insurers don't underwrite policies for highly likely events to people who don't need it.
  92. @Anonymous
    Yep.

    I am a twentysomething woman who would like to be a homemaker. Just like my mother, who took care of my brother and I when we were little. She did eventually start working full time, but that was after my father became ill and my brother and I became legal adults.

    I am terrified at the prospect of marriage and motherhood, because I don't know how the future plays out. What if the traditional family breaks down even further? What if my future husband leaves me because he's bored, or he found a younger woman?

    Divorce courts favoring women in money only matters if you're a poor gold digger. I don't need money from a husband. If I only wanted money I'd just live off my mother/father/brother's wealth forever. I want a husband for life and a successful child. In fact, a child can only achieve full life success if she/he comes from a traditional family.

    “What if the traditional family breaks down even further?”

    It probably will, given all the forces arrayed against it. That doesn’t mean that your family has to break down, however.

    “What if my future husband leaves me because he’s bored, or he found a younger woman?”

    Well, “bored” is at least partly for you to determine. A normal family-oriented man should not be too difficult to interest in his own family, wife included. This doesn’t mean doing whatever the latest issue of Cosmo suggests, it just means making an orderly and pleasant domestic life, you know, a home.

    With the ongoing mass destruction of young women’s femininity, a younger woman is an unlikely threat, especially if your husband is older than you, so you already are his “younger woman”. The ancient rule of thumb is that you should marry your husband at double the result of your age minus seven years. So if you are 25, a 36-ish husband will be unlikely to stray to anyone younger.

    “I want a husband for life and a successful child. In fact, a child can only achieve full life success if she/he comes from a traditional family”

    Being around other people who want the same things you do (trad families, successful children) is helpful and healthful. Look for a neighborhood/community of similarly inclined people.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    With the ongoing mass destruction of young women’s femininity, a younger woman is an unlikely threat, especially if your husband is older than you, so you already are his “younger woman”. The ancient rule of thumb is that you should marry your husband at double the result of your age minus seven years. So if you are 25, a 36-ish husband will be unlikely to stray to anyone younger.
     
    Should she poach someone else's husband, or marry an older bachelor who's been pumping and dumping various women for years? I don't think there is a third option.

    it just means making an orderly and pleasant domestic life, you know, a home
     
    Very nearly impossible for a woman with numerous small children and a husband who refuses to help. Jus sayin'
  93. @Almost Missouri

    "What if the traditional family breaks down even further?"
     
    It probably will, given all the forces arrayed against it. That doesn't mean that your family has to break down, however.

    "What if my future husband leaves me because he’s bored, or he found a younger woman?"
     
    Well, "bored" is at least partly for you to determine. A normal family-oriented man should not be too difficult to interest in his own family, wife included. This doesn't mean doing whatever the latest issue of Cosmo suggests, it just means making an orderly and pleasant domestic life, you know, a home.

    With the ongoing mass destruction of young women's femininity, a younger woman is an unlikely threat, especially if your husband is older than you, so you already are his "younger woman". The ancient rule of thumb is that you should marry your husband at double the result of your age minus seven years. So if you are 25, a 36-ish husband will be unlikely to stray to anyone younger.

    "I want a husband for life and a successful child. In fact, a child can only achieve full life success if she/he comes from a traditional family"
     
    Being around other people who want the same things you do (trad families, successful children) is helpful and healthful. Look for a neighborhood/community of similarly inclined people.

    With the ongoing mass destruction of young women’s femininity, a younger woman is an unlikely threat, especially if your husband is older than you, so you already are his “younger woman”. The ancient rule of thumb is that you should marry your husband at double the result of your age minus seven years. So if you are 25, a 36-ish husband will be unlikely to stray to anyone younger.

    Should she poach someone else’s husband, or marry an older bachelor who’s been pumping and dumping various women for years? I don’t think there is a third option.

    it just means making an orderly and pleasant domestic life, you know, a home

    Very nearly impossible for a woman with numerous small children and a husband who refuses to help. Jus sayin’

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    marry an older bachelor who’s been pumping and dumping various women for years?
     
    Aren't you the one who threw hysterics about "stoning women" and such for my recommendation to men to stay away from sluts, because even "raging sluts" "grow up to be responsible women" who can be relied upon to be faithful wives and mothers?

    Why deny the same courtesy to promiscuous men? Do you hate white marriages and white families?
    , @Rosie

    Very nearly impossible for a woman with numerous small children and a husband who refuses to help. Jus sayin’
     
    To elaborate, there are three types of men:

    1. Ideal-cares about maintaining an orderly home and will help make that possible by, inter alia, using his mean Daddy voice to make the kids pick up their toys.
    2. Acceptable-Not terribly helpful, but doesn't mind a bit of clutter.
    3. To be avoided all costs- won't tolerate any mess and won't lift a finger to help keep things picked up.
    , @Twinkie

    a husband who refuses to help
     
    Oh, dear. Someone is having the "marital moment of low quality" again. Perhaps non-raging sluts get to marry husbands who do help. But we can't have that, can we? That's hurting white people.
    , @Almost Missouri

    Should she poach someone else’s husband, or marry an older bachelor who’s been pumping and dumping various women for years? I don’t think there is a third option.
     
    There are more unmarried people around nowadays than there used to be.

    Or consider someone who ended a youthful marriage with no kids and no alimony, has learned his lesson and is ready for a more serious (i.e., traditional) commitment. An old buddy of mine was like this and is still married AFAIK, even though I didn't see what was so attractive about his second (house, kids, mortgage) wife.

    Regarding "an older bachelor who’s been pumping and dumping various women for years", I've seen these work out too when they decide to get married. The thing about pumping and dumping is, there's no marriage involved, so it's sort of self-fulfilling. A woman who wants marriage and kids can make that clear upfront to save herself a lot of time and trouble. It's not that cads will respect that on principle, it's just that there's no reason for them to subject themselves to the extra demands and drama when they know easier pickings are to be had elsewhere.

    "nearly impossible for a woman with numerous small children"
     
    Weren't you already on this thread singing the praises of family contraception? Seems like that should enable s p a c i n g .

    "and a husband who refuses to help"
     
    Why should he refuse to help if he is interested in his family? If this worries you, don't marry a Moslem.
  94. @Rosie

    Then how would you know?
     
    It's truly appalling what an obnoxious person you are.

    Would you rather be waterboarded, or have your fingernails pulled out? How do you know?

    It’s truly appalling what an obnoxious person you are.

    Why, because I ask inconvenient questions that poke holes in your moronic statements?

    I’ve known women who were physically abused (“slapped around”) by their husbands. Even though the violence was not life-threatening, they were in constant fear of making mistakes and upsetting their husbands. They felt like they were on “thin ice” everyday. It’d been a relief for them if their husbands merely ordered them around and were indifferent.

    Would you rather be waterboarded, or have your fingernails pulled out? How do you know?

    Waterboarded. I’ve had “simulated drowning” as a part of training. And I had a fingernail unwitting pulled out during Judo practice. The latter took a lot longer to recover from than the former. And you can learn to deal with the former with repeated experience and exposure. Meanwhile, I never want to have a nail pulled out ever again.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I’ve known women who were physically abused (“slapped around”) by their husbands. Even though the violence was not life-threatening, they were in constant fear of making mistakes and upsetting their husbands. They felt like they were on “thin ice” everyday. It’d been a relief for them if their husbands merely ordered them around and were indifferent.
     
    Didn't you just imply that it's not legitimate to draw conclusions from your observations of other people's suffering?
  95. @Rosie

    With the ongoing mass destruction of young women’s femininity, a younger woman is an unlikely threat, especially if your husband is older than you, so you already are his “younger woman”. The ancient rule of thumb is that you should marry your husband at double the result of your age minus seven years. So if you are 25, a 36-ish husband will be unlikely to stray to anyone younger.
     
    Should she poach someone else's husband, or marry an older bachelor who's been pumping and dumping various women for years? I don't think there is a third option.

    it just means making an orderly and pleasant domestic life, you know, a home
     
    Very nearly impossible for a woman with numerous small children and a husband who refuses to help. Jus sayin'

    marry an older bachelor who’s been pumping and dumping various women for years?

    Aren’t you the one who threw hysterics about “stoning women” and such for my recommendation to men to stay away from sluts, because even “raging sluts” “grow up to be responsible women” who can be relied upon to be faithful wives and mothers?

    Why deny the same courtesy to promiscuous men? Do you hate white marriages and white families?

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Why deny the same courtesy to promiscuous men? Do you hate white marriages and white families?
     
    Here's the difference between you and me, Twinkie. I fully acknowledge the possibility that some Chad has grown up and is ready to be a decent husband. My objection is not to a woman who decides to marry such a man. My objection is to Almost Missouri's advice that she deliberately make it a point to do so, shunning men her own age. Implicit in this advice is of course the idea that pumping and dumping various women is men's birth right, but a disgrace for women. It's just the SSDD, totally indefensible double standard.
  96. @Rosie

    With the ongoing mass destruction of young women’s femininity, a younger woman is an unlikely threat, especially if your husband is older than you, so you already are his “younger woman”. The ancient rule of thumb is that you should marry your husband at double the result of your age minus seven years. So if you are 25, a 36-ish husband will be unlikely to stray to anyone younger.
     
    Should she poach someone else's husband, or marry an older bachelor who's been pumping and dumping various women for years? I don't think there is a third option.

    it just means making an orderly and pleasant domestic life, you know, a home
     
    Very nearly impossible for a woman with numerous small children and a husband who refuses to help. Jus sayin'

    Very nearly impossible for a woman with numerous small children and a husband who refuses to help. Jus sayin’

    To elaborate, there are three types of men:

    1. Ideal-cares about maintaining an orderly home and will help make that possible by, inter alia, using his mean Daddy voice to make the kids pick up their toys.
    2. Acceptable-Not terribly helpful, but doesn’t mind a bit of clutter.
    3. To be avoided all costs- won’t tolerate any mess and won’t lift a finger to help keep things picked up.

  97. @Rosie

    With the ongoing mass destruction of young women’s femininity, a younger woman is an unlikely threat, especially if your husband is older than you, so you already are his “younger woman”. The ancient rule of thumb is that you should marry your husband at double the result of your age minus seven years. So if you are 25, a 36-ish husband will be unlikely to stray to anyone younger.
     
    Should she poach someone else's husband, or marry an older bachelor who's been pumping and dumping various women for years? I don't think there is a third option.

    it just means making an orderly and pleasant domestic life, you know, a home
     
    Very nearly impossible for a woman with numerous small children and a husband who refuses to help. Jus sayin'

    a husband who refuses to help

    Oh, dear. Someone is having the “marital moment of low quality” again. Perhaps non-raging sluts get to marry husbands who do help. But we can’t have that, can we? That’s hurting white people.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Oh, dear. Someone is having the “marital moment of low quality” again. Perhaps non-raging sluts get to marry husbands who do help. But we can’t have that, can we? That’s hurting white people.
     
    Are you insulting my husband?
  98. @Twinkie

    marry an older bachelor who’s been pumping and dumping various women for years?
     
    Aren't you the one who threw hysterics about "stoning women" and such for my recommendation to men to stay away from sluts, because even "raging sluts" "grow up to be responsible women" who can be relied upon to be faithful wives and mothers?

    Why deny the same courtesy to promiscuous men? Do you hate white marriages and white families?

    Why deny the same courtesy to promiscuous men? Do you hate white marriages and white families?

    Here’s the difference between you and me, Twinkie. I fully acknowledge the possibility that some Chad has grown up and is ready to be a decent husband. My objection is not to a woman who decides to marry such a man. My objection is to Almost Missouri’s advice that she deliberately make it a point to do so, shunning men her own age. Implicit in this advice is of course the idea that pumping and dumping various women is men’s birth right, but a disgrace for women. It’s just the SSDD, totally indefensible double standard.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    A lot of babbling to cover up the revealed hypocrisy.
  99. @Twinkie

    a husband who refuses to help
     
    Oh, dear. Someone is having the "marital moment of low quality" again. Perhaps non-raging sluts get to marry husbands who do help. But we can't have that, can we? That's hurting white people.

    Oh, dear. Someone is having the “marital moment of low quality” again. Perhaps non-raging sluts get to marry husbands who do help. But we can’t have that, can we? That’s hurting white people.

    Are you insulting my husband?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Are you insulting my husband?
     
    No, I am insulting someone else. You'd know whom if you had 2nd grade reading comprehension.

    Relax. I was teasing you a little. It's so easy to have fun with you, Rosie.

    Of course, judging from what you revealed about yourself, I suspect many other men have said the same.
  100. @Rosie

    Why deny the same courtesy to promiscuous men? Do you hate white marriages and white families?
     
    Here's the difference between you and me, Twinkie. I fully acknowledge the possibility that some Chad has grown up and is ready to be a decent husband. My objection is not to a woman who decides to marry such a man. My objection is to Almost Missouri's advice that she deliberately make it a point to do so, shunning men her own age. Implicit in this advice is of course the idea that pumping and dumping various women is men's birth right, but a disgrace for women. It's just the SSDD, totally indefensible double standard.

    A lot of babbling to cover up the revealed hypocrisy.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    A lot of babbling to cover up the revealed hypocrisy.
     
    There's no revealed hypocrisy whatsoever, you insufferable POS.
  101. @Twinkie

    It’s truly appalling what an obnoxious person you are.
     
    Why, because I ask inconvenient questions that poke holes in your moronic statements?

    I've known women who were physically abused ("slapped around") by their husbands. Even though the violence was not life-threatening, they were in constant fear of making mistakes and upsetting their husbands. They felt like they were on "thin ice" everyday. It'd been a relief for them if their husbands merely ordered them around and were indifferent.

    Would you rather be waterboarded, or have your fingernails pulled out? How do you know?
     
    Waterboarded. I've had "simulated drowning" as a part of training. And I had a fingernail unwitting pulled out during Judo practice. The latter took a lot longer to recover from than the former. And you can learn to deal with the former with repeated experience and exposure. Meanwhile, I never want to have a nail pulled out ever again.

    I’ve known women who were physically abused (“slapped around”) by their husbands. Even though the violence was not life-threatening, they were in constant fear of making mistakes and upsetting their husbands. They felt like they were on “thin ice” everyday. It’d been a relief for them if their husbands merely ordered them around and were indifferent.

    Didn’t you just imply that it’s not legitimate to draw conclusions from your observations of other people’s suffering?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Didn’t you just imply that it’s not legitimate to draw conclusions from your observations of other people’s suffering?
     
    The exact words from some of them: "I wish he'd leave me alone." Sounds a lot like "indifference."

    Perhaps you'd rather be slapped around than ignored (I know, not enough cuddling growing up), but there are women who'd rather not be terrified of being physically hurt everyday, the terror being worse than the actual beatings. The lesson for you here? Don't generalize to all women your own feelings of experiences (or insecurities). Just as their sentiments do not invalidate yours, neither does yours theirs.

    But this is a recurring theme with you, always speaking for all whites and all women when, in fact, you simply speak for yourself and yourself alone. Is it because you are ignored all the time in real life that you have to constantly appoint yourself the spokesperson online for people who don't listen to you?
  102. @Rosie

    Oh, dear. Someone is having the “marital moment of low quality” again. Perhaps non-raging sluts get to marry husbands who do help. But we can’t have that, can we? That’s hurting white people.
     
    Are you insulting my husband?

    Are you insulting my husband?

    No, I am insulting someone else. You’d know whom if you had 2nd grade reading comprehension.

    Relax. I was teasing you a little. It’s so easy to have fun with you, Rosie.

    Of course, judging from what you revealed about yourself, I suspect many other men have said the same.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Relax. I was teasing you a little. It’s so easy to have fun with you, Rosie.

    Of course, judging from what you revealed about yourself, I suspect many other men have said the same.
     
    School marm,

    I understand dehumanizing racial epithets are not allowed. Is there an exception for obvious and deliberate provocations?
  103. @Twinkie
    A lot of babbling to cover up the revealed hypocrisy.

    A lot of babbling to cover up the revealed hypocrisy.

    There’s no revealed hypocrisy whatsoever, you insufferable POS.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    you insufferable POS
     
    And, yet, you invoke my name, out of the blue, in several comments. Careful, someone might think that you have a crush on me.

    Totally understandable. Not only do I help out as a husband and am very affectionate, I also homeschool.

    I know you want all that badly. But sorry. Already taken. You are gonna have to devote your attention elsewhere.
  104. @Rosie

    I’ve known women who were physically abused (“slapped around”) by their husbands. Even though the violence was not life-threatening, they were in constant fear of making mistakes and upsetting their husbands. They felt like they were on “thin ice” everyday. It’d been a relief for them if their husbands merely ordered them around and were indifferent.
     
    Didn't you just imply that it's not legitimate to draw conclusions from your observations of other people's suffering?

    Didn’t you just imply that it’s not legitimate to draw conclusions from your observations of other people’s suffering?

    The exact words from some of them: “I wish he’d leave me alone.” Sounds a lot like “indifference.”

    Perhaps you’d rather be slapped around than ignored (I know, not enough cuddling growing up), but there are women who’d rather not be terrified of being physically hurt everyday, the terror being worse than the actual beatings. The lesson for you here? Don’t generalize to all women your own feelings of experiences (or insecurities). Just as their sentiments do not invalidate yours, neither does yours theirs.

    But this is a recurring theme with you, always speaking for all whites and all women when, in fact, you simply speak for yourself and yourself alone. Is it because you are ignored all the time in real life that you have to constantly appoint yourself the spokesperson online for people who don’t listen to you?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    A lot of babbling to cover up revealed hypocrisy.
  105. @Rosie

    With the ongoing mass destruction of young women’s femininity, a younger woman is an unlikely threat, especially if your husband is older than you, so you already are his “younger woman”. The ancient rule of thumb is that you should marry your husband at double the result of your age minus seven years. So if you are 25, a 36-ish husband will be unlikely to stray to anyone younger.
     
    Should she poach someone else's husband, or marry an older bachelor who's been pumping and dumping various women for years? I don't think there is a third option.

    it just means making an orderly and pleasant domestic life, you know, a home
     
    Very nearly impossible for a woman with numerous small children and a husband who refuses to help. Jus sayin'

    Should she poach someone else’s husband, or marry an older bachelor who’s been pumping and dumping various women for years? I don’t think there is a third option.

    There are more unmarried people around nowadays than there used to be.

    Or consider someone who ended a youthful marriage with no kids and no alimony, has learned his lesson and is ready for a more serious (i.e., traditional) commitment. An old buddy of mine was like this and is still married AFAIK, even though I didn’t see what was so attractive about his second (house, kids, mortgage) wife.

    Regarding “an older bachelor who’s been pumping and dumping various women for years”, I’ve seen these work out too when they decide to get married. The thing about pumping and dumping is, there’s no marriage involved, so it’s sort of self-fulfilling. A woman who wants marriage and kids can make that clear upfront to save herself a lot of time and trouble. It’s not that cads will respect that on principle, it’s just that there’s no reason for them to subject themselves to the extra demands and drama when they know easier pickings are to be had elsewhere.

    “nearly impossible for a woman with numerous small children”

    Weren’t you already on this thread singing the praises of family contraception? Seems like that should enable s p a c i n g .

    “and a husband who refuses to help”

    Why should he refuse to help if he is interested in his family? If this worries you, don’t marry a Moslem.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    The thing about pumping and dumping is, there’s no marriage involved, so it’s sort of self-fulfilling. A woman who wants marriage and kids can make that clear upfront to save herself a lot of time and trouble. It’s not that cads will respect that on principle, it’s just that there’s no reason for them to subject themselves to the extra demands and drama when they know easier pickings are to be had elsewhere.
     
    You missed Rosie's comments where - instead of women simply denying the cads by practicing a little self-control and virtue* - she keeps insisting that women should be able to sleep around with the cads and then deal with the aftermath by either 1) having the women's fathers and brothers assaulting the cads or 2) the cads being forced to marry the women.

    *Per Rosie, women can't be virtuous and practice self-restraint, because women cannot resist the powerful emotional affection they get from men and thereby must, just must, open their legs.

    In Rosie's world, women have no agency - they are just she-cats going with any man who shows interest - so everything that happens to them is men's fault.
    , @Rosie

    A woman who wants marriage and kids can make that clear upfront to save herself a lot of time and trouble.
     
    I know that, and you know that, but 20 year olds often do not know that. Moreover, after getting brushed off so many times after refusing to have sex, it's easy to get the impression that you simply will not get anywhere if you don't put out.

    One thing you have to understand is that young women want to date young men, not men who are ten years older than them. They are responding to the demands of men their own age.

    One approach is to simply tell women point blank that men don't want any sort of commitment until they're in their thirties, so you can either date men your own age and get used and abused, or you can date older men who have spent the last ten years using girls like you and are now ready to get married.

    I don't know about that. It sounds like a recipe for terrible cynicism to me. If someone had said that to me when I was a young woman, I'd have probably been so disgusted, I'd have just said forget about it.
  106. @Rosie

    A lot of babbling to cover up the revealed hypocrisy.
     
    There's no revealed hypocrisy whatsoever, you insufferable POS.

    you insufferable POS

    And, yet, you invoke my name, out of the blue, in several comments. Careful, someone might think that you have a crush on me.

    Totally understandable. Not only do I help out as a husband and am very affectionate, I also homeschool.

    I know you want all that badly. But sorry. Already taken. You are gonna have to devote your attention elsewhere.

  107. @Twinkie

    Are you insulting my husband?
     
    No, I am insulting someone else. You'd know whom if you had 2nd grade reading comprehension.

    Relax. I was teasing you a little. It's so easy to have fun with you, Rosie.

    Of course, judging from what you revealed about yourself, I suspect many other men have said the same.

    Relax. I was teasing you a little. It’s so easy to have fun with you, Rosie.

    Of course, judging from what you revealed about yourself, I suspect many other men have said the same.

    School marm,

    I understand dehumanizing racial epithets are not allowed. Is there an exception for obvious and deliberate provocations?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    School marm,

    I understand dehumanizing racial epithets are not allowed. Is there an exception for obvious and deliberate provocations?
     

    Yes, ask daddy for permission.

    It's so funny how you've called me all sorts of names until now, but you can't handle a bit of light humor about yourself. Par for the course. #hypocrisy.

    You know, I actually wouldn't mind it at all if AE let you say what you want. I think it will reveal yet more about you.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    No, as long as they don't seriously reveal personal information or advocate illegal activity. I really don't like the thought of suppressing comments.

    You can just ignore it. I don't think Twinkie is going to instigate or continue to chide if you don't respond.
  108. @Almost Missouri

    Should she poach someone else’s husband, or marry an older bachelor who’s been pumping and dumping various women for years? I don’t think there is a third option.
     
    There are more unmarried people around nowadays than there used to be.

    Or consider someone who ended a youthful marriage with no kids and no alimony, has learned his lesson and is ready for a more serious (i.e., traditional) commitment. An old buddy of mine was like this and is still married AFAIK, even though I didn't see what was so attractive about his second (house, kids, mortgage) wife.

    Regarding "an older bachelor who’s been pumping and dumping various women for years", I've seen these work out too when they decide to get married. The thing about pumping and dumping is, there's no marriage involved, so it's sort of self-fulfilling. A woman who wants marriage and kids can make that clear upfront to save herself a lot of time and trouble. It's not that cads will respect that on principle, it's just that there's no reason for them to subject themselves to the extra demands and drama when they know easier pickings are to be had elsewhere.

    "nearly impossible for a woman with numerous small children"
     
    Weren't you already on this thread singing the praises of family contraception? Seems like that should enable s p a c i n g .

    "and a husband who refuses to help"
     
    Why should he refuse to help if he is interested in his family? If this worries you, don't marry a Moslem.

    The thing about pumping and dumping is, there’s no marriage involved, so it’s sort of self-fulfilling. A woman who wants marriage and kids can make that clear upfront to save herself a lot of time and trouble. It’s not that cads will respect that on principle, it’s just that there’s no reason for them to subject themselves to the extra demands and drama when they know easier pickings are to be had elsewhere.

    You missed Rosie’s comments where – instead of women simply denying the cads by practicing a little self-control and virtue* – she keeps insisting that women should be able to sleep around with the cads and then deal with the aftermath by either 1) having the women’s fathers and brothers assaulting the cads or 2) the cads being forced to marry the women.

    *Per Rosie, women can’t be virtuous and practice self-restraint, because women cannot resist the powerful emotional affection they get from men and thereby must, just must, open their legs.

    In Rosie’s world, women have no agency – they are just she-cats going with any man who shows interest – so everything that happens to them is men’s fault.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    In Rosie’s world, women have no agency – they are just she-cats going with any man who shows interest – so everything that happens to them is men’s fault.
     
    In Twinkie's world, men have no agency. They just can't help themselves, and therefore shouldn't be required to be a father for their children.
  109. @Rosie

    Relax. I was teasing you a little. It’s so easy to have fun with you, Rosie.

    Of course, judging from what you revealed about yourself, I suspect many other men have said the same.
     
    School marm,

    I understand dehumanizing racial epithets are not allowed. Is there an exception for obvious and deliberate provocations?

    School marm,

    I understand dehumanizing racial epithets are not allowed. Is there an exception for obvious and deliberate provocations?

    Yes, ask daddy for permission.

    It’s so funny how you’ve called me all sorts of names until now, but you can’t handle a bit of light humor about yourself. Par for the course. #hypocrisy.

    You know, I actually wouldn’t mind it at all if AE let you say what you want. I think it will reveal yet more about you.

  110. @Twinkie

    The thing about pumping and dumping is, there’s no marriage involved, so it’s sort of self-fulfilling. A woman who wants marriage and kids can make that clear upfront to save herself a lot of time and trouble. It’s not that cads will respect that on principle, it’s just that there’s no reason for them to subject themselves to the extra demands and drama when they know easier pickings are to be had elsewhere.
     
    You missed Rosie's comments where - instead of women simply denying the cads by practicing a little self-control and virtue* - she keeps insisting that women should be able to sleep around with the cads and then deal with the aftermath by either 1) having the women's fathers and brothers assaulting the cads or 2) the cads being forced to marry the women.

    *Per Rosie, women can't be virtuous and practice self-restraint, because women cannot resist the powerful emotional affection they get from men and thereby must, just must, open their legs.

    In Rosie's world, women have no agency - they are just she-cats going with any man who shows interest - so everything that happens to them is men's fault.

    In Rosie’s world, women have no agency – they are just she-cats going with any man who shows interest – so everything that happens to them is men’s fault.

    In Twinkie’s world, men have no agency. They just can’t help themselves, and therefore shouldn’t be required to be a father for their children.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    In Twinkie’s world, men have no agency. They just can’t help themselves, and therefore shouldn’t be required to be a father for their children.
     
    The actual difference between you and me is that I quote you accurately and you just make up straw men and attribute them to me. And then you call ME a liar. And lots of other nasty things.

    http://www.unz.com/anepigone/you-must-not-replace-you-part-two/#comment-3263480


    Say, Twinkie, where ie your concern for the morals of these men who get girls pregnant and then dump them?
     
    I condemn such behavior. It’s ugly and immoral. Women should avoid such men.
     
  111. @Twinkie

    Didn’t you just imply that it’s not legitimate to draw conclusions from your observations of other people’s suffering?
     
    The exact words from some of them: "I wish he'd leave me alone." Sounds a lot like "indifference."

    Perhaps you'd rather be slapped around than ignored (I know, not enough cuddling growing up), but there are women who'd rather not be terrified of being physically hurt everyday, the terror being worse than the actual beatings. The lesson for you here? Don't generalize to all women your own feelings of experiences (or insecurities). Just as their sentiments do not invalidate yours, neither does yours theirs.

    But this is a recurring theme with you, always speaking for all whites and all women when, in fact, you simply speak for yourself and yourself alone. Is it because you are ignored all the time in real life that you have to constantly appoint yourself the spokesperson online for people who don't listen to you?

    A lot of babbling to cover up revealed hypocrisy.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    A lot of babbling to cover up revealed hypocrisy.
     
    Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

    How very Oriental of you to just copy and paste what I wrote! You do really want me!

  112. @Anonymous
    It sounds like Rosie is a high IQ low testosterone woman who is projecting her own traits onto everyone else.

    In reality, most people are stupid, unconscientious, have animalistic sex drives, and have low impulse control.

    If she banned birth control we'd get even more idiocracy than we already have. High IQ, high conscientiousness, low testosterone people would just practice abstinence. Blacks, hispanics, and low IQ whites would breed at the same rate as they do in the Congo.

    In reality, most people are stupid, unconscientious, have animalistic sex drives, and have low impulse control.

    That’s almost verbatim Rosie’s description of women (an presumably of herself).

    • Replies: @Rosie

    That’s almost verbatim Rosie’s description of women (an presumably of herself).
     
    Twinkie: Boys have been knocking girls up from time immemorial. Maybe if we just shame people hard enough they'll stop!
  113. @Rosie
    A lot of babbling to cover up revealed hypocrisy.

    A lot of babbling to cover up revealed hypocrisy.

    Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

    How very Oriental of you to just copy and paste what I wrote! You do really want me!

  114. @Rosie

    In Rosie’s world, women have no agency – they are just she-cats going with any man who shows interest – so everything that happens to them is men’s fault.
     
    In Twinkie's world, men have no agency. They just can't help themselves, and therefore shouldn't be required to be a father for their children.

    In Twinkie’s world, men have no agency. They just can’t help themselves, and therefore shouldn’t be required to be a father for their children.

    The actual difference between you and me is that I quote you accurately and you just make up straw men and attribute them to me. And then you call ME a liar. And lots of other nasty things.

    http://www.unz.com/anepigone/you-must-not-replace-you-part-two/#comment-3263480

    Say, Twinkie, where ie your concern for the morals of these men who get girls pregnant and then dump them?

    I condemn such behavior. It’s ugly and immoral. Women should avoid such men.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    Twinkie, it's not my fault you say one thing in one thread, then the opposite in another.
  115. @Twinkie

    In Twinkie’s world, men have no agency. They just can’t help themselves, and therefore shouldn’t be required to be a father for their children.
     
    The actual difference between you and me is that I quote you accurately and you just make up straw men and attribute them to me. And then you call ME a liar. And lots of other nasty things.

    http://www.unz.com/anepigone/you-must-not-replace-you-part-two/#comment-3263480


    Say, Twinkie, where ie your concern for the morals of these men who get girls pregnant and then dump them?
     
    I condemn such behavior. It’s ugly and immoral. Women should avoid such men.
     

    Twinkie, it’s not my fault you say one thing in one thread, then the opposite in another.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Twinkie, it’s not my fault you say one thing in one thread, then the opposite in another.
     
    Examples would help. And please use quotation marks. That's what we do in white society when we borrow other people's words exactly. And, no, things you make up in your own mind doesn't count.
  116. @Rosie
    Twinkie, it's not my fault you say one thing in one thread, then the opposite in another.

    Twinkie, it’s not my fault you say one thing in one thread, then the opposite in another.

    Examples would help. And please use quotation marks. That’s what we do in white society when we borrow other people’s words exactly. And, no, things you make up in your own mind doesn’t count.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    On further reflection , I stand corrected. You didn't contradict yourself. You just said that men who get girls pregnant and dump them are "immoral" but then you ridiculed the idea of shotgun marriages, saying "women should avoid such men."


    But then that is typical of you. The onus is always on women.
  117. @Twinkie

    In reality, most people are stupid, unconscientious, have animalistic sex drives, and have low impulse control.
     
    That's almost verbatim Rosie's description of women (an presumably of herself).

    That’s almost verbatim Rosie’s description of women (an presumably of herself).

    Twinkie: Boys have been knocking girls up from time immemorial. Maybe if we just shame people hard enough they’ll stop!

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Twinkie: Boys have been knocking girls up from time immemorial. Maybe if we just shame people hard enough they’ll stop!
     
    Funny thing. People are social creatures and care a great deal of what other people think. Example: Rosie can't stand that Twinkie might think less of her, so she goes around chasing him everywhere to let him know, time and again, just how ridiculous he is and how little she thinks of him. And gosh darn it, he better pay attention when she does it!

    Social pressure works. You admitted that already (you want me to quote again from the other thread?). I want that social pressure to bear on BOTH men and women to be virtuous. You, on the other hand, are on record as stating that the pressure should be only on men since, according to you, men's behaviors dictate women's behaviors, but not vice versa.
  118. @Twinkie

    Twinkie, it’s not my fault you say one thing in one thread, then the opposite in another.
     
    Examples would help. And please use quotation marks. That's what we do in white society when we borrow other people's words exactly. And, no, things you make up in your own mind doesn't count.

    On further reflection , I stand corrected. You didn’t contradict yourself. You just said that men who get girls pregnant and dump them are “immoral” but then you ridiculed the idea of shotgun marriages, saying “women should avoid such men.”

    But then that is typical of you. The onus is always on women.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    saying “women should avoid such men.”
     
    Yes. Women should avoid cads and men should avoid sluts. The virtuous should seek each other, marry, and have lots of children. That's how you end up with a virtuous society.

    shotgun marriages
     
    I am armed to the teeth (I probably have more guns than all the commenters here combined), but in a civil society I do not like the idea of the armed forcing others to do their bidding. I rather that kind of thing is settled voluntarily with things like decorum, manners, and shame... you know, civilization.
    , @Twinkie

    On further reflection , I stand corrected.
     
    Good girl. Realized you couldn't come up with any example of me contradicting myself, could you? You must realize everything you and I write here is preserved. If you kept that in mind, I think you'd refrain from writing 95% of what you write. It's too easy to expose hypocrisy.
  119. @Rosie

    That’s almost verbatim Rosie’s description of women (an presumably of herself).
     
    Twinkie: Boys have been knocking girls up from time immemorial. Maybe if we just shame people hard enough they'll stop!

    Twinkie: Boys have been knocking girls up from time immemorial. Maybe if we just shame people hard enough they’ll stop!

    Funny thing. People are social creatures and care a great deal of what other people think. Example: Rosie can’t stand that Twinkie might think less of her, so she goes around chasing him everywhere to let him know, time and again, just how ridiculous he is and how little she thinks of him. And gosh darn it, he better pay attention when she does it!

    Social pressure works. You admitted that already (you want me to quote again from the other thread?). I want that social pressure to bear on BOTH men and women to be virtuous. You, on the other hand, are on record as stating that the pressure should be only on men since, according to you, men’s behaviors dictate women’s behaviors, but not vice versa.

  120. @Rosie
    On further reflection , I stand corrected. You didn't contradict yourself. You just said that men who get girls pregnant and dump them are "immoral" but then you ridiculed the idea of shotgun marriages, saying "women should avoid such men."


    But then that is typical of you. The onus is always on women.

    saying “women should avoid such men.”

    Yes. Women should avoid cads and men should avoid sluts. The virtuous should seek each other, marry, and have lots of children. That’s how you end up with a virtuous society.

    shotgun marriages

    I am armed to the teeth (I probably have more guns than all the commenters here combined), but in a civil society I do not like the idea of the armed forcing others to do their bidding. I rather that kind of thing is settled voluntarily with things like decorum, manners, and shame… you know, civilization.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Women should avoid cads and men should avoid sluts.
     
    I will acknowledge that this is at least even-handed, but I still don't like it. It is certainly tempting to suggest that women "punish" cads by refusing to marry them after they've pumped and dumped through their twenties, but I sincerely believe that would be catastrophic for our people.

    We live in degenerate times, and it's unrealistic to expect that not to have had an effect.
  121. @Almost Missouri

    Should she poach someone else’s husband, or marry an older bachelor who’s been pumping and dumping various women for years? I don’t think there is a third option.
     
    There are more unmarried people around nowadays than there used to be.

    Or consider someone who ended a youthful marriage with no kids and no alimony, has learned his lesson and is ready for a more serious (i.e., traditional) commitment. An old buddy of mine was like this and is still married AFAIK, even though I didn't see what was so attractive about his second (house, kids, mortgage) wife.

    Regarding "an older bachelor who’s been pumping and dumping various women for years", I've seen these work out too when they decide to get married. The thing about pumping and dumping is, there's no marriage involved, so it's sort of self-fulfilling. A woman who wants marriage and kids can make that clear upfront to save herself a lot of time and trouble. It's not that cads will respect that on principle, it's just that there's no reason for them to subject themselves to the extra demands and drama when they know easier pickings are to be had elsewhere.

    "nearly impossible for a woman with numerous small children"
     
    Weren't you already on this thread singing the praises of family contraception? Seems like that should enable s p a c i n g .

    "and a husband who refuses to help"
     
    Why should he refuse to help if he is interested in his family? If this worries you, don't marry a Moslem.

    A woman who wants marriage and kids can make that clear upfront to save herself a lot of time and trouble.

    I know that, and you know that, but 20 year olds often do not know that. Moreover, after getting brushed off so many times after refusing to have sex, it’s easy to get the impression that you simply will not get anywhere if you don’t put out.

    One thing you have to understand is that young women want to date young men, not men who are ten years older than them. They are responding to the demands of men their own age.

    One approach is to simply tell women point blank that men don’t want any sort of commitment until they’re in their thirties, so you can either date men your own age and get used and abused, or you can date older men who have spent the last ten years using girls like you and are now ready to get married.

    I don’t know about that. It sounds like a recipe for terrible cynicism to me. If someone had said that to me when I was a young woman, I’d have probably been so disgusted, I’d have just said forget about it.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Moreover, after getting brushed off so many times after refusing to have sex, it’s easy to get the impression that you simply will not get anywhere if you don’t put out.
     
    It isn't self-restraint* if it's easy.

    *For example, saying that you need speed pills to avoid being overweight - "because genetics" - is most certainly NOT self-restraint.

    One thing you have to understand is that young women want to date young men, not men who are ten years older than them.
     
    We don't have to understand any such thing, because there appear to be plenty of 25 year-olds who date 35 year-olds (provided, of course, the 35 year-olds in question seem to be attractive, have good jobs, money, status, etc.).

    They are responding to the demands of men their own age.
     
    In other words, women have no agency and are simply creatures of men's desires. Ok, then, white Pakistan it is.

    so you can either date men your own age and get used and abused, or you can date older men who have spent the last ten years using girls like you and are now ready to get married.
     
    Third option: practice self-control and -restraint and marry a man who has done the same.
  122. @Rosie
    On further reflection , I stand corrected. You didn't contradict yourself. You just said that men who get girls pregnant and dump them are "immoral" but then you ridiculed the idea of shotgun marriages, saying "women should avoid such men."


    But then that is typical of you. The onus is always on women.

    On further reflection , I stand corrected.

    Good girl. Realized you couldn’t come up with any example of me contradicting myself, could you? You must realize everything you and I write here is preserved. If you kept that in mind, I think you’d refrain from writing 95% of what you write. It’s too easy to expose hypocrisy.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Good girl. Realized you couldn’t come up with any example of me contradicting myself, could you? You must realize everything you and I write here is preserved. If you kept that in mind, I think you’d refrain from writing 95% of what you write. It’s too easy to expose hypocrisy.
     
    This is why you are such an insufferable douchebag. You never, ever fail to punish any attempt at sincerity or good faith.

    Now go fuck yourself. I'm done with you.
  123. Just thought I would get my two cents in.

    Nothing and nothing moral about killing children in the womb.

  124. @Rosie

    A woman who wants marriage and kids can make that clear upfront to save herself a lot of time and trouble.
     
    I know that, and you know that, but 20 year olds often do not know that. Moreover, after getting brushed off so many times after refusing to have sex, it's easy to get the impression that you simply will not get anywhere if you don't put out.

    One thing you have to understand is that young women want to date young men, not men who are ten years older than them. They are responding to the demands of men their own age.

    One approach is to simply tell women point blank that men don't want any sort of commitment until they're in their thirties, so you can either date men your own age and get used and abused, or you can date older men who have spent the last ten years using girls like you and are now ready to get married.

    I don't know about that. It sounds like a recipe for terrible cynicism to me. If someone had said that to me when I was a young woman, I'd have probably been so disgusted, I'd have just said forget about it.

    Moreover, after getting brushed off so many times after refusing to have sex, it’s easy to get the impression that you simply will not get anywhere if you don’t put out.

    It isn’t self-restraint* if it’s easy.

    *For example, saying that you need speed pills to avoid being overweight – “because genetics” – is most certainly NOT self-restraint.

    One thing you have to understand is that young women want to date young men, not men who are ten years older than them.

    We don’t have to understand any such thing, because there appear to be plenty of 25 year-olds who date 35 year-olds (provided, of course, the 35 year-olds in question seem to be attractive, have good jobs, money, status, etc.).

    They are responding to the demands of men their own age.

    In other words, women have no agency and are simply creatures of men’s desires. Ok, then, white Pakistan it is.

    so you can either date men your own age and get used and abused, or you can date older men who have spent the last ten years using girls like you and are now ready to get married.

    Third option: practice self-control and -restraint and marry a man who has done the same.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Third option: practice self-control and -restraint and marry a man who has done the same.
     
    What a ridiculous ass. Do you or do you not believe in fallen humanity?

    Perhaps you would make a better Muslim than you do a Christian.
  125. @Twinkie

    saying “women should avoid such men.”
     
    Yes. Women should avoid cads and men should avoid sluts. The virtuous should seek each other, marry, and have lots of children. That's how you end up with a virtuous society.

    shotgun marriages
     
    I am armed to the teeth (I probably have more guns than all the commenters here combined), but in a civil society I do not like the idea of the armed forcing others to do their bidding. I rather that kind of thing is settled voluntarily with things like decorum, manners, and shame... you know, civilization.

    Women should avoid cads and men should avoid sluts.

    I will acknowledge that this is at least even-handed, but I still don’t like it. It is certainly tempting to suggest that women “punish” cads by refusing to marry them after they’ve pumped and dumped through their twenties, but I sincerely believe that would be catastrophic for our people.

    We live in degenerate times, and it’s unrealistic to expect that not to have had an effect.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I will acknowledge that this is at least even-handed, but I still don’t like it
     
    Why, that's a complete reversal from the 500 comments you have written here to the contrary.

    Welcome to sanity!

    women “punish” cads by refusing to marry them after they’ve pumped and dumped through their twenties
     
    You fixate on certain words a lot, such as "perfect" and, in this case, "punish."

    Think in terms of rewarding and inculcating virtue, not doling out punishments. People suffering natural consequences of their poor choices is not punishment. It is exactly that - a consequence.

    By the way, if more women followed this advice, the incidences of the said "pumping and dumping" would decrease. Believe it or not, there is not an unlimited supply of women, especially nubile women. Yes, male behaviors affect female behaviors, but female behaviors affect male behaviors far more powerfully - which is exactly what the study you quoted (mistakenly from your point of view) said: "Female (sexual) abundance and scarcity affect male behaviors in ways male abundance and scarcity do not on women. Female scarcity leads to male seeking of monogamy."
  126. @Twinkie

    On further reflection , I stand corrected.
     
    Good girl. Realized you couldn't come up with any example of me contradicting myself, could you? You must realize everything you and I write here is preserved. If you kept that in mind, I think you'd refrain from writing 95% of what you write. It's too easy to expose hypocrisy.

    Good girl. Realized you couldn’t come up with any example of me contradicting myself, could you? You must realize everything you and I write here is preserved. If you kept that in mind, I think you’d refrain from writing 95% of what you write. It’s too easy to expose hypocrisy.

    This is why you are such an insufferable douchebag. You never, ever fail to punish any attempt at sincerity or good faith.

    Now go fuck yourself. I’m done with you.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    sincerity or good faith.
     

    an insufferable douchebag... go fuck yourself
     
    Not the first time and, I suspect, not the last.
  127. @Twinkie

    Moreover, after getting brushed off so many times after refusing to have sex, it’s easy to get the impression that you simply will not get anywhere if you don’t put out.
     
    It isn't self-restraint* if it's easy.

    *For example, saying that you need speed pills to avoid being overweight - "because genetics" - is most certainly NOT self-restraint.

    One thing you have to understand is that young women want to date young men, not men who are ten years older than them.
     
    We don't have to understand any such thing, because there appear to be plenty of 25 year-olds who date 35 year-olds (provided, of course, the 35 year-olds in question seem to be attractive, have good jobs, money, status, etc.).

    They are responding to the demands of men their own age.
     
    In other words, women have no agency and are simply creatures of men's desires. Ok, then, white Pakistan it is.

    so you can either date men your own age and get used and abused, or you can date older men who have spent the last ten years using girls like you and are now ready to get married.
     
    Third option: practice self-control and -restraint and marry a man who has done the same.

    Third option: practice self-control and -restraint and marry a man who has done the same.

    What a ridiculous ass. Do you or do you not believe in fallen humanity?

    Perhaps you would make a better Muslim than you do a Christian.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Do you or do you not believe in fallen humanity?
     
    I believe man is flawed, but gains Paradise in afterlife through the graces of God.

    In the mean time, here on earth, we ought to try our best to be less fallen. This is different from what you advocate, which is to give in to the fallen-ness as such, so much so as to defiantly proclaim "So what if I was a raging slut?"

    better Muslim
     
    That would be, again, projection, Mrs. White Pakistan. I don't think it's a Christian thing to force unwilling women to marry men they don't want to marry (do you want me to quote you again?). In fact the Church condemned coercion in matters of marriage in the medieval times, forget the modern times.
  128. Does anyone know if there’s an ignore commenter function on this blog?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Does anyone know if there’s an ignore commenter function on this blog?
     
    Yes there is and I wish you would use it. That way you will have absolutely no clue what I am writing and be completely baffled why others are laughing. ;)
  129. @Rosie

    Good girl. Realized you couldn’t come up with any example of me contradicting myself, could you? You must realize everything you and I write here is preserved. If you kept that in mind, I think you’d refrain from writing 95% of what you write. It’s too easy to expose hypocrisy.
     
    This is why you are such an insufferable douchebag. You never, ever fail to punish any attempt at sincerity or good faith.

    Now go fuck yourself. I'm done with you.

    sincerity or good faith.

    an insufferable douchebag… go fuck yourself

    Not the first time and, I suspect, not the last.

  130. @Rosie

    Third option: practice self-control and -restraint and marry a man who has done the same.
     
    What a ridiculous ass. Do you or do you not believe in fallen humanity?

    Perhaps you would make a better Muslim than you do a Christian.

    Do you or do you not believe in fallen humanity?

    I believe man is flawed, but gains Paradise in afterlife through the graces of God.

    In the mean time, here on earth, we ought to try our best to be less fallen. This is different from what you advocate, which is to give in to the fallen-ness as such, so much so as to defiantly proclaim “So what if I was a raging slut?”

    better Muslim

    That would be, again, projection, Mrs. White Pakistan. I don’t think it’s a Christian thing to force unwilling women to marry men they don’t want to marry (do you want me to quote you again?). In fact the Church condemned coercion in matters of marriage in the medieval times, forget the modern times.

  131. @Rosie
    Does anyone know if there's an ignore commenter function on this blog?

    Does anyone know if there’s an ignore commenter function on this blog?

    Yes there is and I wish you would use it. That way you will have absolutely no clue what I am writing and be completely baffled why others are laughing. 😉

  132. @Rosie

    Women should avoid cads and men should avoid sluts.
     
    I will acknowledge that this is at least even-handed, but I still don't like it. It is certainly tempting to suggest that women "punish" cads by refusing to marry them after they've pumped and dumped through their twenties, but I sincerely believe that would be catastrophic for our people.

    We live in degenerate times, and it's unrealistic to expect that not to have had an effect.

    I will acknowledge that this is at least even-handed, but I still don’t like it

    Why, that’s a complete reversal from the 500 comments you have written here to the contrary.

    Welcome to sanity!

    women “punish” cads by refusing to marry them after they’ve pumped and dumped through their twenties

    You fixate on certain words a lot, such as “perfect” and, in this case, “punish.”

    Think in terms of rewarding and inculcating virtue, not doling out punishments. People suffering natural consequences of their poor choices is not punishment. It is exactly that – a consequence.

    By the way, if more women followed this advice, the incidences of the said “pumping and dumping” would decrease. Believe it or not, there is not an unlimited supply of women, especially nubile women. Yes, male behaviors affect female behaviors, but female behaviors affect male behaviors far more powerfully – which is exactly what the study you quoted (mistakenly from your point of view) said: “Female (sexual) abundance and scarcity affect male behaviors in ways male abundance and scarcity do not on women. Female scarcity leads to male seeking of monogamy.”

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Think in terms of rewarding and inculcating virtue, not doling out punishments. People suffering natural consequences of their poor choices is not punishment. It is exactly that – a consequence.
     
    Twinkie, the hair-splitter-in-chief

    By the way, if more women followed this advice, the incidences of the said “pumping and dumping” would decrease.
     
    Not that there would be any white people left to enjoy all this.

    the mean time, here on earth, we ought to try our best to be less fallen. This is different from what you advocate, which is to give in to the fallen-ness as such, so much so as to defiantly proclaim “So what if I was a raging slut?”
     
    Jesus:"Go and sin no more."
    I guess I missed the part where Jesus told the men to "avoid" her.
    , @Rosie

    Yes, male behaviors affect female behaviors, but female behaviors affect male behaviors far more powerfully – which is exactly what the study you quoted (mistakenly from your point of view) said: “Female (sexual) abundance and scarcity affect male behaviors in ways male abundance and scarcity do not on women. Female scarcity leads to male seeking of monogamy.”
     
    More dishonesty. The point of the article is that a female-biased sex ratio in the population leads to more sociosexual behaviors and attitudes. The behaviors are the effect, not the cause.
  133. @Twinkie

    I will acknowledge that this is at least even-handed, but I still don’t like it
     
    Why, that's a complete reversal from the 500 comments you have written here to the contrary.

    Welcome to sanity!

    women “punish” cads by refusing to marry them after they’ve pumped and dumped through their twenties
     
    You fixate on certain words a lot, such as "perfect" and, in this case, "punish."

    Think in terms of rewarding and inculcating virtue, not doling out punishments. People suffering natural consequences of their poor choices is not punishment. It is exactly that - a consequence.

    By the way, if more women followed this advice, the incidences of the said "pumping and dumping" would decrease. Believe it or not, there is not an unlimited supply of women, especially nubile women. Yes, male behaviors affect female behaviors, but female behaviors affect male behaviors far more powerfully - which is exactly what the study you quoted (mistakenly from your point of view) said: "Female (sexual) abundance and scarcity affect male behaviors in ways male abundance and scarcity do not on women. Female scarcity leads to male seeking of monogamy."

    Think in terms of rewarding and inculcating virtue, not doling out punishments. People suffering natural consequences of their poor choices is not punishment. It is exactly that – a consequence.

    Twinkie, the hair-splitter-in-chief

    By the way, if more women followed this advice, the incidences of the said “pumping and dumping” would decrease.

    Not that there would be any white people left to enjoy all this.

    the mean time, here on earth, we ought to try our best to be less fallen. This is different from what you advocate, which is to give in to the fallen-ness as such, so much so as to defiantly proclaim “So what if I was a raging slut?”

    Jesus:”Go and sin no more.”
    I guess I missed the part where Jesus told the men to “avoid” her.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I guess I missed the part where Jesus told the men to “avoid” her.
     
    I don’t think Jesus told them to delight in her company either.
    , @Twinkie

    Not that there would be any white people left to enjoy all this.
     
    How do I put this delicately? Don’t assume because you were “a raging slut,” other white women are. Remember I told you not generalize yourself as every white woman?

    You don’t fix a rotten culture by telling people to keep doing the same thing. Even if the virtuous are a minority, if they are encouraged to seek each other, marry, and have lots of children and bring those children virtuously, the next generation of the virtuous will get bigger, and the next generation bigger still, and so on.
    , @Twinkie

    I guess I missed the part
     
    You certainly missed the part where she repented.
  134. @Twinkie

    I will acknowledge that this is at least even-handed, but I still don’t like it
     
    Why, that's a complete reversal from the 500 comments you have written here to the contrary.

    Welcome to sanity!

    women “punish” cads by refusing to marry them after they’ve pumped and dumped through their twenties
     
    You fixate on certain words a lot, such as "perfect" and, in this case, "punish."

    Think in terms of rewarding and inculcating virtue, not doling out punishments. People suffering natural consequences of their poor choices is not punishment. It is exactly that - a consequence.

    By the way, if more women followed this advice, the incidences of the said "pumping and dumping" would decrease. Believe it or not, there is not an unlimited supply of women, especially nubile women. Yes, male behaviors affect female behaviors, but female behaviors affect male behaviors far more powerfully - which is exactly what the study you quoted (mistakenly from your point of view) said: "Female (sexual) abundance and scarcity affect male behaviors in ways male abundance and scarcity do not on women. Female scarcity leads to male seeking of monogamy."

    Yes, male behaviors affect female behaviors, but female behaviors affect male behaviors far more powerfully – which is exactly what the study you quoted (mistakenly from your point of view) said: “Female (sexual) abundance and scarcity affect male behaviors in ways male abundance and scarcity do not on women. Female scarcity leads to male seeking of monogamy.”

    More dishonesty. The point of the article is that a female-biased sex ratio in the population leads to more sociosexual behaviors and attitudes. The behaviors are the effect, not the cause.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    The point of the article is that a female-biased sex ratio in the population leads to more sociosexual behaviors and attitudes. The behaviors are the effect, not the cause.
     
    You do realize that availability of sexual opportunity for men is not strictly based on the number of females, right?
  135. @Rosie

    Think in terms of rewarding and inculcating virtue, not doling out punishments. People suffering natural consequences of their poor choices is not punishment. It is exactly that – a consequence.
     
    Twinkie, the hair-splitter-in-chief

    By the way, if more women followed this advice, the incidences of the said “pumping and dumping” would decrease.
     
    Not that there would be any white people left to enjoy all this.

    the mean time, here on earth, we ought to try our best to be less fallen. This is different from what you advocate, which is to give in to the fallen-ness as such, so much so as to defiantly proclaim “So what if I was a raging slut?”
     
    Jesus:"Go and sin no more."
    I guess I missed the part where Jesus told the men to "avoid" her.

    I guess I missed the part where Jesus told the men to “avoid” her.

    I don’t think Jesus told them to delight in her company either.

  136. @Rosie

    Yes, male behaviors affect female behaviors, but female behaviors affect male behaviors far more powerfully – which is exactly what the study you quoted (mistakenly from your point of view) said: “Female (sexual) abundance and scarcity affect male behaviors in ways male abundance and scarcity do not on women. Female scarcity leads to male seeking of monogamy.”
     
    More dishonesty. The point of the article is that a female-biased sex ratio in the population leads to more sociosexual behaviors and attitudes. The behaviors are the effect, not the cause.

    The point of the article is that a female-biased sex ratio in the population leads to more sociosexual behaviors and attitudes. The behaviors are the effect, not the cause.

    You do realize that availability of sexual opportunity for men is not strictly based on the number of females, right?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    You do realize that availability of sexual opportunity for men is not strictly based on the number of females, right?
     
    Are you just playing dumb, or are you actually dumb?

    The number of females intensifies competition for Male attention, leading to increased incidences of casual sex. Any one person may be able to avoid this, but it is sociological fact that most will not.
  137. @Rosie

    Think in terms of rewarding and inculcating virtue, not doling out punishments. People suffering natural consequences of their poor choices is not punishment. It is exactly that – a consequence.
     
    Twinkie, the hair-splitter-in-chief

    By the way, if more women followed this advice, the incidences of the said “pumping and dumping” would decrease.
     
    Not that there would be any white people left to enjoy all this.

    the mean time, here on earth, we ought to try our best to be less fallen. This is different from what you advocate, which is to give in to the fallen-ness as such, so much so as to defiantly proclaim “So what if I was a raging slut?”
     
    Jesus:"Go and sin no more."
    I guess I missed the part where Jesus told the men to "avoid" her.

    Not that there would be any white people left to enjoy all this.

    How do I put this delicately? Don’t assume because you were “a raging slut,” other white women are. Remember I told you not generalize yourself as every white woman?

    You don’t fix a rotten culture by telling people to keep doing the same thing. Even if the virtuous are a minority, if they are encouraged to seek each other, marry, and have lots of children and bring those children virtuously, the next generation of the virtuous will get bigger, and the next generation bigger still, and so on.

  138. @Rosie

    Think in terms of rewarding and inculcating virtue, not doling out punishments. People suffering natural consequences of their poor choices is not punishment. It is exactly that – a consequence.
     
    Twinkie, the hair-splitter-in-chief

    By the way, if more women followed this advice, the incidences of the said “pumping and dumping” would decrease.
     
    Not that there would be any white people left to enjoy all this.

    the mean time, here on earth, we ought to try our best to be less fallen. This is different from what you advocate, which is to give in to the fallen-ness as such, so much so as to defiantly proclaim “So what if I was a raging slut?”
     
    Jesus:"Go and sin no more."
    I guess I missed the part where Jesus told the men to "avoid" her.

    I guess I missed the part

    You certainly missed the part where she repented.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    You certainly missed the part where she repented.
     
    So we agree. If a person wants to change and live a better life, there's no point dwelling on the past, or are you go to renege again?
  139. @Twinkie

    The point of the article is that a female-biased sex ratio in the population leads to more sociosexual behaviors and attitudes. The behaviors are the effect, not the cause.
     
    You do realize that availability of sexual opportunity for men is not strictly based on the number of females, right?

    You do realize that availability of sexual opportunity for men is not strictly based on the number of females, right?

    Are you just playing dumb, or are you actually dumb?

    The number of females intensifies competition for Male attention, leading to increased incidences of casual sex. Any one person may be able to avoid this, but it is sociological fact that most will not.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    You missed the point entirely, as usual. The median lifetime sexual partner of American women is 2, but the average is 7. That means there is a small fraction that is extremely promiscuous while most (50%+) are pretty chaste (0-2). Which means that the slut fraction is expanding the supply of sex significantly and altering male behavior to be less monogamous per the study you cited.

    In order to make men more monogamous, you have to reduce the supply of sexual partners (“scarcity”) according to the study. What’s the best way? Tell the majority women with 1-2 lifetime partners to slut up or make it less socially acceptable for the small minority with 10-20+ partners who are responsible for the expansion of female sexual availability?

    Think through the math before you answer.
  140. @Twinkie

    I guess I missed the part
     
    You certainly missed the part where she repented.

    You certainly missed the part where she repented.

    So we agree. If a person wants to change and live a better life, there’s no point dwelling on the past, or are you go to renege again?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    there’s no point dwelling on the past
     
    Sounds like someone who doesn’t repent. Forgiveness is not forgetting.
  141. @Rosie

    You certainly missed the part where she repented.
     
    So we agree. If a person wants to change and live a better life, there's no point dwelling on the past, or are you go to renege again?

    there’s no point dwelling on the past

    Sounds like someone who doesn’t repent. Forgiveness is not forgetting.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Sounds like someone who doesn’t repent. Forgiveness is not forgetting.
     
    Yes, of course you reneged again.
  142. @Rosie

    You do realize that availability of sexual opportunity for men is not strictly based on the number of females, right?
     
    Are you just playing dumb, or are you actually dumb?

    The number of females intensifies competition for Male attention, leading to increased incidences of casual sex. Any one person may be able to avoid this, but it is sociological fact that most will not.

    You missed the point entirely, as usual. The median lifetime sexual partner of American women is 2, but the average is 7. That means there is a small fraction that is extremely promiscuous while most (50%+) are pretty chaste (0-2). Which means that the slut fraction is expanding the supply of sex significantly and altering male behavior to be less monogamous per the study you cited.

    In order to make men more monogamous, you have to reduce the supply of sexual partners (“scarcity”) according to the study. What’s the best way? Tell the majority women with 1-2 lifetime partners to slut up or make it less socially acceptable for the small minority with 10-20+ partners who are responsible for the expansion of female sexual availability?

    Think through the math before you answer.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    In order to make men more monogamous, you have to reduce the supply of sexual partners (“scarcity”) according to the study.
     
    Liar. The article was about the number of women in the population.
  143. @Twinkie
    You missed the point entirely, as usual. The median lifetime sexual partner of American women is 2, but the average is 7. That means there is a small fraction that is extremely promiscuous while most (50%+) are pretty chaste (0-2). Which means that the slut fraction is expanding the supply of sex significantly and altering male behavior to be less monogamous per the study you cited.

    In order to make men more monogamous, you have to reduce the supply of sexual partners (“scarcity”) according to the study. What’s the best way? Tell the majority women with 1-2 lifetime partners to slut up or make it less socially acceptable for the small minority with 10-20+ partners who are responsible for the expansion of female sexual availability?

    Think through the math before you answer.

    In order to make men more monogamous, you have to reduce the supply of sexual partners (“scarcity”) according to the study.

    Liar. The article was about the number of women in the population.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    The article was about the number of women in the population.
     
    Couldn’t figure out the simple math of median vs. mean I wrote of, huh?

    High IQ indeed.
  144. @Twinkie

    there’s no point dwelling on the past
     
    Sounds like someone who doesn’t repent. Forgiveness is not forgetting.

    Sounds like someone who doesn’t repent. Forgiveness is not forgetting.

    Yes, of course you reneged again.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Yes, of course you reneged again.
     
    Renege what? I’ve been consistent in all my relevant comments that redemption requires acknowledgment of wrongdoing and repentance for the same. Your idea of redemption is rubbing your sins defiantly on other people’s noses saying “So what?” or hiding it and moving on.
  145. I figured out how to ignore Twinkie. Yay!

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    <golf clap>  Here, have a cookie.

    What will you do for your next trick?  Take the training wheels off your bicycle, perhaps?
  146. An interesting statistical phenomenon that AE might be interested in exploring:

    Excessive concern about a potential partner’s sexual history may be dysgenic, especially for men. Promiscuity is correlated with higher intelligence, and the correlation is much more pronounced for women than for men.

    It has long been known that IQ is positively correlated with “openness to experience,” so this is not terribly surprising.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-one-lifespan/201211/openness-experience-and-intellectual-ability

    • Replies: @Rosie
    It occurs to me that the usual pattern of men having more premarital sex than women is probably often reversed among very high-IQ couples. The most intelligent men may have to be more flexible and forgiving than average men, if they want to marry an intellectual peer.
    , @Talha

    Promiscuity is correlated with higher intelligence
     
    Chalk up another notch for extreme intelligence being dysgenic.

    I’m going to share this with Prof. Dutton and if he has taken this into account.

    Peace.
    , @Twinkie
    That study says nothing about promiscuity. It does says a lot about positive correlations between “openness” and intelligence:

    Notably, the construct of Openness to experience measures the tendency to fantasize, an aesthetic sensitivity, awareness of one’s emotions, preference for novelty, intellectual curiosity, and preference for nontraditional values (McCrae & Costa, 2003).[Boldface mine.]
     
    Yay, openness! Higher tolerance for raging sluts! And transgenders! And pedophiles!
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Thanks. I'd not previously looked at that but it checks out with the GSS (yes, I see that's the source used!).
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Double thanks. There's an interesting twist worthy of a post here.
  147. @Rosie
    An interesting statistical phenomenon that AE might be interested in exploring:

    Excessive concern about a potential partner's sexual history may be dysgenic, especially for men. Promiscuity is correlated with higher intelligence, and the correlation is much more pronounced for women than for men.

    https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/figureintelligence-w640.png

    It has long been known that IQ is positively correlated with "openness to experience," so this is not terribly surprising.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-one-lifespan/201211/openness-experience-and-intellectual-ability

    It occurs to me that the usual pattern of men having more premarital sex than women is probably often reversed among very high-IQ couples. The most intelligent men may have to be more flexible and forgiving than average men, if they want to marry an intellectual peer.

    • Replies: @iffen
    if they want to marry an intellectual peer.

    Score one for intelligent raging sluts.
    , @Twinkie

    The most intelligent men may have to be more flexible and forgiving than average men, if they want to marry an intellectual peer.
     
    Yes, such flexibility also leads them to be more likely than average to be very left-wing and support (and engage in) interracial marriage.

    Isn’t that going to lead to white death? Why do you hate white people so much, Rosie?
    , @Mr Puroik
    yeah it is no secret at all (and I have observed this for years now) that most high-IQ men are simpy cucks without balls. It is sort of like the old stereotype of the dumb jock and the cowardly smart nerd was actually true all along. I've known two or three highly intelligent guys who had 'open relationships' that consisted of their partners having a sex buffet while they got blue balls. Contrary to popular perception, I don't think that high-IQ or intellectualism makes a dude desirable for women
  148. @Rosie
    An interesting statistical phenomenon that AE might be interested in exploring:

    Excessive concern about a potential partner's sexual history may be dysgenic, especially for men. Promiscuity is correlated with higher intelligence, and the correlation is much more pronounced for women than for men.

    https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/figureintelligence-w640.png

    It has long been known that IQ is positively correlated with "openness to experience," so this is not terribly surprising.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-one-lifespan/201211/openness-experience-and-intellectual-ability

    Promiscuity is correlated with higher intelligence

    Chalk up another notch for extreme intelligence being dysgenic.

    I’m going to share this with Prof. Dutton and if he has taken this into account.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I’m going to share this with Prof. Dutton and if he has taken this into account.
     
    Who is Prof Dutton?
    , @Audacious Epigone
    He is well aware that more partners = less fertility for at least the last two generations.
  149. @Talha

    Promiscuity is correlated with higher intelligence
     
    Chalk up another notch for extreme intelligence being dysgenic.

    I’m going to share this with Prof. Dutton and if he has taken this into account.

    Peace.

    I’m going to share this with Prof. Dutton and if he has taken this into account.

    Who is Prof Dutton?

    • Replies: @Talha
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0eC9B9rWtK4

    Peace.
  150. @Rosie
    It occurs to me that the usual pattern of men having more premarital sex than women is probably often reversed among very high-IQ couples. The most intelligent men may have to be more flexible and forgiving than average men, if they want to marry an intellectual peer.

    if they want to marry an intellectual peer.

    Score one for intelligent raging sluts.

    • LOL: Rosie, Twinkie
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    “High IQ people more likely to support immigration and interracial marriage.”

    Rosie: Race traitors! They must be sent to WN re-education camps!

    “High IQ people more likely to tolerate raging sluts.”

    Rosie: Never mind. Great husband material!
  151. @Almost Missouri
    It's the one where Graham Chapman is the put-upon suburban househusband atheist annoyed by the sound of Sunday morning church bells. After inflicting aggressive alliteration on his wife (Terry Jones?), "she" rescues him from his predicament by reminding him of his house-of-worship-seeking-missile.

    The video marker was set for the final silence after the storm when a chuffed Chapman remarks,

    "I've always said that there's nothing an agnostic can't do if he really doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not."
     
    BTW, you can probably use Tor Browser or a Tor window on Brave browser to end run UK browsing restrictions.

    That is a funny sketch, I remember it fondly. Thanks for the browser tips as well.

  152. @Rosie

    I’m going to share this with Prof. Dutton and if he has taken this into account.
     
    Who is Prof Dutton?

    Peace.

  153. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "I find it somewhat curious that the same people who complain about the rewarding of womb productivity (not without justification in my opinion) should be amongst those complaining when pregnancies are not brought to term, I would have thought they would approve."

    I'm not really sure why you would find it curious; you're conflating two separate issues.

    Just like the people who make the argument that it is hypocritical to oppose abortion but support the death penalty. (FD: I am against both but for different reasons because they are different issues.) That contention is built upon the faulty premise that all killing is the same regardless of context. It isn't all the same, and anyone who says killing an unborn fetus is no different morally than executing a convicted murderer is either a liar or a fool.

    So those of us complaining about "the rewarding of womb productivity" do so because, in the most simple of terms, rewarding poor behavior gives us more poor behavior. We actually realize it's not the unborn child's fault that its parents are stupid, which is why "we" don't approve of killing it after the fact. We also realize that shutting off the gibs will likely change the behavior of at least some sexually reckless individuals, thus resulting in less abortions to follow.

    I’m not really finding a lot to disagree with in your response. You have an internally consistent point of view and though I am not in full agreement with you I can cheerfully agree to disagree. You have successfully made the case that one can disapprove of excessive ‘womb productivity’ but still be opposed to abortion without being internally inconsistent.

    Our only difference (as far as I can make out) is that I don’t see early term abortion as particularly problematic, whereas you appear to be opposed completely. You ought to be aware that there are forms of contraception which are nothing less than very early term abortions, the morning-after pill is one of them.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    Well thanks for the compliment. I do try to be consistent if not coherent. lol

    "Our only difference (as far as I can make out) is that I don’t see early term abortion as particularly problematic, whereas you appear to be opposed completely."

    Personally, I am opposed to it completely, but not because of Jesus or anything like that, for two reasons. One, I don't like the idea of abortion being used for birth control because like I said before it, perhaps unintentionally, promotes irresponsibility. Second, a society that eliminates a million future human beings per year has no investment in its future, and while there are certainly other factors at play in the decline of our civilization, abortion on demand is a clear indicator.

    Now with that said, I perfectly realize that banning abortion at any stage will create a whole host of unintended consequences that defeat the purpose. So in the interest of both sides, a compromise should be reached, such as no abortions past the 1st trimester or once the fetus' heartbeat can be detected, or similar. But the earlier in term the better, I think. In order to placate staunch pragmatists such as Mr. Rational (that's not an insult, BTW,) a mother or couple should be allowed to request a later term abortion for a fetus determined to possess non treatable physical or mental deformities while in utero, via some kind of hearing, either in front of a medical board or courts or the equivalent.

    And yes, I am aware of abortifacients and how they differ from contraceptives.
  154. @Almost Missouri

    "It is widely held to be impossible to prove a negative"
     
    True. But then why proceed as if you had done so?

    "Why doesn’t a dismissal of those older religions “prove no erudition, only prejudice”?"
     
    You're right. It doesn't.

    "To use an unsupported hypothesis to make ethical decisions in the real world is quite simply ridiculous."
     
    I agree. Nevertheless, I estimate that upwards of 99.9% of ethical decisions are made just this way.

    I am confused as to why you think I am proceeding as if I had proved a negative. I never claimed that I could prove souls don’t exist, quite the reverse in fact. There are an enormous amount of things I cannot prove the non-existence of but I see no rational reason that I should take every purely theoretical entity into account when I make a decision. Unless you are claiming that you do so yourself (and I don’t believe that for one moment) I suggest that you would generally exhibit the same attitude to unsupported hypotheses that I do.

    The only difference in our position as far as I can see, is that you appear to be religious and I am not. In your perception, the possible existence of souls has to be taken into account, in mine not. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, I thank you for remaining reasonable and civil throughout.

    Best wishes.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "I am confused as to why you think I am proceeding as if I had proved a negative."
     
    Isn't atheism the belief that you have disproved the existence of God, i.e., that you have proved a negative?

    "The only difference in our position as far as I can see, is that you appear to be religious and I am not."
     
    I'm not religious either. I believe in God for the same reason I believe in magnetism: it is most logical. In other words, I agree with Aristotle.
  155. The question of whether and when a soul is endowed in any human being is missing the point. The US should not be engaged in the killing of children in the womb period. Whether the soul arrives at conception or when they reach the age of 92 is simply not a question for the law nor the supreme court.

  156. @Rosie
    An interesting statistical phenomenon that AE might be interested in exploring:

    Excessive concern about a potential partner's sexual history may be dysgenic, especially for men. Promiscuity is correlated with higher intelligence, and the correlation is much more pronounced for women than for men.

    https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/figureintelligence-w640.png

    It has long been known that IQ is positively correlated with "openness to experience," so this is not terribly surprising.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-one-lifespan/201211/openness-experience-and-intellectual-ability

    That study says nothing about promiscuity. It does says a lot about positive correlations between “openness” and intelligence:

    Notably, the construct of Openness to experience measures the tendency to fantasize, an aesthetic sensitivity, awareness of one’s emotions, preference for novelty, intellectual curiosity, and preference for nontraditional values (McCrae & Costa, 2003).[Boldface mine.]

    Yay, openness! Higher tolerance for raging sluts! And transgenders! And pedophiles!

    • Replies: @iffen
    Yay, openness! Higher tolerance for raging sluts! And transgenders! And pedophiles!

    Raging sluts have little in common with transgenders (a mental illness) and pedophilia (a criminal evil).
  157. @Rosie
    It occurs to me that the usual pattern of men having more premarital sex than women is probably often reversed among very high-IQ couples. The most intelligent men may have to be more flexible and forgiving than average men, if they want to marry an intellectual peer.

    The most intelligent men may have to be more flexible and forgiving than average men, if they want to marry an intellectual peer.

    Yes, such flexibility also leads them to be more likely than average to be very left-wing and support (and engage in) interracial marriage.

    Isn’t that going to lead to white death? Why do you hate white people so much, Rosie?

  158. @Rosie

    In order to make men more monogamous, you have to reduce the supply of sexual partners (“scarcity”) according to the study.
     
    Liar. The article was about the number of women in the population.

    The article was about the number of women in the population.

    Couldn’t figure out the simple math of median vs. mean I wrote of, huh?

    High IQ indeed.

  159. @Rosie

    Sounds like someone who doesn’t repent. Forgiveness is not forgetting.
     
    Yes, of course you reneged again.

    Yes, of course you reneged again.

    Renege what? I’ve been consistent in all my relevant comments that redemption requires acknowledgment of wrongdoing and repentance for the same. Your idea of redemption is rubbing your sins defiantly on other people’s noses saying “So what?” or hiding it and moving on.

  160. @iffen
    if they want to marry an intellectual peer.

    Score one for intelligent raging sluts.

    “High IQ people more likely to support immigration and interracial marriage.”

    Rosie: Race traitors! They must be sent to WN re-education camps!

    “High IQ people more likely to tolerate raging sluts.”

    Rosie: Never mind. Great husband material!

    • LOL: iffen
  161. @Rosie

    True. But then why proceed as if you had done so?
     
    Excellent point.

    IMO, the proper response to the flying spaghetti monster argument is that there is no know phenomenon that demands an explanation that the FSM explains. OTOH, there are things that demand an explanation that God explains. Some call this a "God of the Gaps" fallacy, but this idea strikes me as an attempt to claim that atheism is more coherent and defensible than it really is.

    https://youtu.be/TPwPfPvz5Jo

    Oh no not intelligent design, you do realise that stuff is actually weaker than the original creation myth?

    Allow me to explain.

    There are two possibilities, either you believe in evolution or you don’t.

    If you don’t believe in evolution then you have a problem explaining the fossil record. An adherent of the creation myth will presumably argue that either the fossil record was created by God (to test our faith) or by Satan to confuse us (or something similar) Either way, this is pure creation myth stuff and needs no intellectualising at all, the argument is “I can’t believe that the world I see around me happened as a naturally occurring thing, therefore I believe in a creator” This point of view is at least internally consistent, I don’t agree with it of course but such is life.

    So what has the “intelligent design” team brought to the party? what is their take on evolution and the fossil record?

    If they don’t believe in evolution and the fossil record they are in exactly the same boat as the creation myth people and all they have brought is a a load of pseudo-intellectual fluff to make it all sound rational and sciencey and they still have the fossil record to explain away.

    If the “intelligent design” adherents do believe in evolution that is where the fun really begins. In this case we have the rather awkward question of when exactly the designing was being done.

    The first living things we know about are the archaea (previously called archaebacteria) followed by prokaryotes, and this is all the life the planet had for billions of years. Much later we had the eukaryotes (complete with endosymbiosis) then multicellular creatures and cell differentiation. vertebrates and invertebrates, then a well defined progression, fish, amphibians, reptiles and finally birds and mammals, eventually hominids.

    So did God design the archaea and let nature run its course? That leaves a lot of added complexity coming into existence without a hand at the helm, which completely contradicts the whole “intelligent design” philosophy. (hopefully we can leave that option out)

    Or perhaps God was designing all the way, starting with the archaea and spent the next two billion years or so tweaking and re-tweaking prokaryotes (that must have been a great deal of fun for him/her/it) before moving on to more complex things.

    Why go through all that rigmarole if it could be mammals week one? why bother with all the creatures that turned out to be evolutionary dead ends? That makes no sense to me.

    If I were you I would stick with the basic creation myth.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    Pointing out unanswered questions in intelligent design theory is only useful if Darwinists themselves didn't leave any unanswered questions. Given that both views have explanatory gaps, the right approach is to determine which explanation best accounts for all the observable phenomena.
    , @notanon

    There are two possibilities, either you believe in evolution or you don’t.
     
    if you believe in evolution then religion must have been adaptive.

    Why go through all that rigmarole if it could be mammals week one?
     
    curiosity - set the ball rolling and see what happens.
    , @Talha

    Why go through all that rigmarole if it could be mammals week one?
     
    Who says the rigamarole is not part of the plan? I mean, to you and me it seems like a heck of a lot of work, but to a Being that transcends time-space...there is no waiting; the past/present/future is one and the same. Likewise with the act of creation, simply willing something into being requires no effort. Bringing mammals into position at week one or at week 32 million requires the same non-effort.

    why bother with all the creatures that turned out to be evolutionary dead ends?
     
    That is another judgement call based on assumptions of work/effort.

    That makes no sense to me.
     
    It wouldn't to me either if I started out with the same baseline assumptions.

    I don't personally have issues with the theory of evolution, per se. It's a nice working model (of course there are multiple competing claims to the correct evolutionary model) thus far to explain the mechanics of survival-of-the-fittest - given the evidence we dug up until now (of course a two million old homo sapiens jaw bone inconveniently found in some cave would have us do a heck of a lot of rework). I'd love to see more intermediary forms though; you know like kangaroos with a quarter-developed pouch or something - everything we dig up seems to be too fully developed. Also a very basic organism starting at like two or thee cells would be a great find.

    The real question is; does everything necessarily require a naturalistic explanation? I mean, sure that's one way of demanding an answer (in which case one simply does not believe in the concept of a miracle) and if one does, then there really is no way around it since that is the a priori assumption. But if one does accept the possibility of the occurrence of a miracle, then there is no reason why one cannot accept that evolution does indeed occur, but that a virgin girl in 1st century Palestine can give birth to a son without the necessary male intervention or that the first human beings can be inserted into the world being independent of the evolutionary chain of events, but composed of the same genetic building blocks as everything else on the planet thus giving the impression that they are indeed part of the same exact process.

    Peace.
    , @Twinkie

    Oh no not intelligent design,
     
    Yup. I am an obedient Catholic and subscribe to theistic evolution. The evidence for evolution is pretty clear. I highly recommend Razib Khan’s piece on it: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/evolutionary-theory-crowning-achievement-western-civilization/

    The ID movement is dying out except among low IQ Christians, because much improved genetic science is adding more and more overwhelming evidence on the side of evolution everyday. That doesn’t mean evolution explains everything (certainly not the origin of life, for example), but it is and should be the dominant paradigm given the wealth of data that is now available to support it.
  162. Calling all reformed intelligent raging sluts, get out your violins:

    It appears Black Pigeon Lies has been Shoah’d

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    Black Pigeon doesn't always speak, but when he does, he sounds like a gay marine biologist.
    , @Talha
    Relying on people that consider you deplorable to provide you with the platform by which to undermine their worldview can either be chalked up to being very naive or extremely shortsighted - either way, it’s a failure out the gate.

    Peace.
  163. @MarkU
    Oh no not intelligent design, you do realise that stuff is actually weaker than the original creation myth?

    Allow me to explain.

    There are two possibilities, either you believe in evolution or you don't.

    If you don't believe in evolution then you have a problem explaining the fossil record. An adherent of the creation myth will presumably argue that either the fossil record was created by God (to test our faith) or by Satan to confuse us (or something similar) Either way, this is pure creation myth stuff and needs no intellectualising at all, the argument is "I can't believe that the world I see around me happened as a naturally occurring thing, therefore I believe in a creator" This point of view is at least internally consistent, I don't agree with it of course but such is life.

    So what has the "intelligent design" team brought to the party? what is their take on evolution and the fossil record?

    If they don't believe in evolution and the fossil record they are in exactly the same boat as the creation myth people and all they have brought is a a load of pseudo-intellectual fluff to make it all sound rational and sciencey and they still have the fossil record to explain away.

    If the "intelligent design" adherents do believe in evolution that is where the fun really begins. In this case we have the rather awkward question of when exactly the designing was being done.

    The first living things we know about are the archaea (previously called archaebacteria) followed by prokaryotes, and this is all the life the planet had for billions of years. Much later we had the eukaryotes (complete with endosymbiosis) then multicellular creatures and cell differentiation. vertebrates and invertebrates, then a well defined progression, fish, amphibians, reptiles and finally birds and mammals, eventually hominids.

    So did God design the archaea and let nature run its course? That leaves a lot of added complexity coming into existence without a hand at the helm, which completely contradicts the whole "intelligent design" philosophy. (hopefully we can leave that option out)

    Or perhaps God was designing all the way, starting with the archaea and spent the next two billion years or so tweaking and re-tweaking prokaryotes (that must have been a great deal of fun for him/her/it) before moving on to more complex things.

    Why go through all that rigmarole if it could be mammals week one? why bother with all the creatures that turned out to be evolutionary dead ends? That makes no sense to me.

    If I were you I would stick with the basic creation myth.

    Pointing out unanswered questions in intelligent design theory is only useful if Darwinists themselves didn’t leave any unanswered questions. Given that both views have explanatory gaps, the right approach is to determine which explanation best accounts for all the observable phenomena.

  164. @MarkU
    Oh no not intelligent design, you do realise that stuff is actually weaker than the original creation myth?

    Allow me to explain.

    There are two possibilities, either you believe in evolution or you don't.

    If you don't believe in evolution then you have a problem explaining the fossil record. An adherent of the creation myth will presumably argue that either the fossil record was created by God (to test our faith) or by Satan to confuse us (or something similar) Either way, this is pure creation myth stuff and needs no intellectualising at all, the argument is "I can't believe that the world I see around me happened as a naturally occurring thing, therefore I believe in a creator" This point of view is at least internally consistent, I don't agree with it of course but such is life.

    So what has the "intelligent design" team brought to the party? what is their take on evolution and the fossil record?

    If they don't believe in evolution and the fossil record they are in exactly the same boat as the creation myth people and all they have brought is a a load of pseudo-intellectual fluff to make it all sound rational and sciencey and they still have the fossil record to explain away.

    If the "intelligent design" adherents do believe in evolution that is where the fun really begins. In this case we have the rather awkward question of when exactly the designing was being done.

    The first living things we know about are the archaea (previously called archaebacteria) followed by prokaryotes, and this is all the life the planet had for billions of years. Much later we had the eukaryotes (complete with endosymbiosis) then multicellular creatures and cell differentiation. vertebrates and invertebrates, then a well defined progression, fish, amphibians, reptiles and finally birds and mammals, eventually hominids.

    So did God design the archaea and let nature run its course? That leaves a lot of added complexity coming into existence without a hand at the helm, which completely contradicts the whole "intelligent design" philosophy. (hopefully we can leave that option out)

    Or perhaps God was designing all the way, starting with the archaea and spent the next two billion years or so tweaking and re-tweaking prokaryotes (that must have been a great deal of fun for him/her/it) before moving on to more complex things.

    Why go through all that rigmarole if it could be mammals week one? why bother with all the creatures that turned out to be evolutionary dead ends? That makes no sense to me.

    If I were you I would stick with the basic creation myth.

    There are two possibilities, either you believe in evolution or you don’t.

    if you believe in evolution then religion must have been adaptive.

    Why go through all that rigmarole if it could be mammals week one?

    curiosity – set the ball rolling and see what happens.

  165. @MarkU
    Oh no not intelligent design, you do realise that stuff is actually weaker than the original creation myth?

    Allow me to explain.

    There are two possibilities, either you believe in evolution or you don't.

    If you don't believe in evolution then you have a problem explaining the fossil record. An adherent of the creation myth will presumably argue that either the fossil record was created by God (to test our faith) or by Satan to confuse us (or something similar) Either way, this is pure creation myth stuff and needs no intellectualising at all, the argument is "I can't believe that the world I see around me happened as a naturally occurring thing, therefore I believe in a creator" This point of view is at least internally consistent, I don't agree with it of course but such is life.

    So what has the "intelligent design" team brought to the party? what is their take on evolution and the fossil record?

    If they don't believe in evolution and the fossil record they are in exactly the same boat as the creation myth people and all they have brought is a a load of pseudo-intellectual fluff to make it all sound rational and sciencey and they still have the fossil record to explain away.

    If the "intelligent design" adherents do believe in evolution that is where the fun really begins. In this case we have the rather awkward question of when exactly the designing was being done.

    The first living things we know about are the archaea (previously called archaebacteria) followed by prokaryotes, and this is all the life the planet had for billions of years. Much later we had the eukaryotes (complete with endosymbiosis) then multicellular creatures and cell differentiation. vertebrates and invertebrates, then a well defined progression, fish, amphibians, reptiles and finally birds and mammals, eventually hominids.

    So did God design the archaea and let nature run its course? That leaves a lot of added complexity coming into existence without a hand at the helm, which completely contradicts the whole "intelligent design" philosophy. (hopefully we can leave that option out)

    Or perhaps God was designing all the way, starting with the archaea and spent the next two billion years or so tweaking and re-tweaking prokaryotes (that must have been a great deal of fun for him/her/it) before moving on to more complex things.

    Why go through all that rigmarole if it could be mammals week one? why bother with all the creatures that turned out to be evolutionary dead ends? That makes no sense to me.

    If I were you I would stick with the basic creation myth.

    Why go through all that rigmarole if it could be mammals week one?

    Who says the rigamarole is not part of the plan? I mean, to you and me it seems like a heck of a lot of work, but to a Being that transcends time-space…there is no waiting; the past/present/future is one and the same. Likewise with the act of creation, simply willing something into being requires no effort. Bringing mammals into position at week one or at week 32 million requires the same non-effort.

    why bother with all the creatures that turned out to be evolutionary dead ends?

    That is another judgement call based on assumptions of work/effort.

    That makes no sense to me.

    It wouldn’t to me either if I started out with the same baseline assumptions.

    I don’t personally have issues with the theory of evolution, per se. It’s a nice working model (of course there are multiple competing claims to the correct evolutionary model) thus far to explain the mechanics of survival-of-the-fittest – given the evidence we dug up until now (of course a two million old homo sapiens jaw bone inconveniently found in some cave would have us do a heck of a lot of rework). I’d love to see more intermediary forms though; you know like kangaroos with a quarter-developed pouch or something – everything we dig up seems to be too fully developed. Also a very basic organism starting at like two or thee cells would be a great find.

    The real question is; does everything necessarily require a naturalistic explanation? I mean, sure that’s one way of demanding an answer (in which case one simply does not believe in the concept of a miracle) and if one does, then there really is no way around it since that is the a priori assumption. But if one does accept the possibility of the occurrence of a miracle, then there is no reason why one cannot accept that evolution does indeed occur, but that a virgin girl in 1st century Palestine can give birth to a son without the necessary male intervention or that the first human beings can be inserted into the world being independent of the evolutionary chain of events, but composed of the same genetic building blocks as everything else on the planet thus giving the impression that they are indeed part of the same exact process.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Talha

    multiple competing claims to the correct evolutionary model
     
    For a contemporary article on Neo-Lamarckism:
    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/411880/a-comeback-for-lamarckian-evolution/
    , @Almost Missouri

    "to you and me it seems like a heck of a lot of work, but to a Being that transcends time-space…there is no waiting; the past/present/future is one and the same. Likewise with the act of creation, simply willing something into being requires no effort."
     
    Indeed, the very concept of "effort", applied to omnipotent God, seems a kind of micro-blasphemy, perhaps against God, but certainly against logic.


    "That makes no sense to me."
     
    "It wouldn’t to me either if I started out with the same baseline assumptions."
     
    A lot of neo-atheist "debunking" of religion consists of applying mundane and finite concepts to the ineffable and infinite. Obviously these concepts won't fit, but the atheist mistakes this misfit for a refutation.

    To make an allegory that is less at the extreme, everyone can accept that the human mind, the human being, is vastly more sophisticated and powerful than the mind and being of a beetle. So much so, that a beetle may not even recognize a human in the rare event that it comes into the path of one. Indeed, as the vast majority of beetles probably have never encountered a human, perhaps beetles only hear of humans as legendary super-powerful creatures of beetle myth. And even if a beetle accepts the reality of humans and has the fortune or misfortune actually to encounter a human, could this rare beetle ever understand the the actions, the motives of the human? Probably not. In most cases, the best the beetle could do is to have a kind of spiritual humility that there is something way above itself, which it cannot really comprehend but which is no less real because of that.

    There is nothing strange or irrational in the preceding paragraph, right?

    Now, what if there is something as far above us as we are above the lowly beetle?

    ...

    The atheist may retort, "Well, there isn't!"

    But how is atheist retort any different from the beetle scientist loudly rejecting the reality of "these so called humans, these gods looming down from the sky, this Flying Spaghetti Monster"?
    , @Almost Missouri

    "I’d love to see more intermediary forms though; you know like kangaroos with a quarter-developed pouch or something – everything we dig up seems to be too fully developed."
     
    Yes, this is the basic problem with Darwinian-style evolution. By his reasoning on incremental-changes, we should be finding incremental forms everywhere. Heck not just in the fossil record, they should be all around us: pigs partway developed into dolphins, kangaroos with quarter-pouches, giraffes with quarter length necks, etc. etc.

    But we don't. Instead everything is more or less a terminal form.

    In his lifetime, Darwin's response to this was, well, the living forms change too slowly to notice and we just haven't found the dead ones in the fossil record yet. As the fossil record was just getting started at that time, this was almost plausible. But even Darwin himself was getting uneasy.

    Since his death, the fossil record has gotten much more extensive. But it has just confirmed the pre-existing reality. The record showed no quarter-trilobites and no eighth-trilobites. Instead it showed more and more fully formed trilobites with no intermediate form to or from something else. Species appear in the fossil record fully formed and then disappear fully formed, replaced by new fully formed species. Darwinians can draw pseudo-significant lines into evolutionary trees all they want, but it doesn't change the reality that there are no forms on those lines, only at the beginnings and ends.
    , @Mr. Rational

    I’d love to see more intermediary forms though; you know like kangaroos with a quarter-developed pouch or something – everything we dig up seems to be too fully developed.
     
    And just how would you expect soft tissues like pouches to fossilize?

    That you didn't think to ask that question shows a lack of imagination.  It's not hard to think of ways that marsupials could have evolved that adaptation starting from fully-viable live birth, to the economy of attaching a less-developed offspring to a teat for an extended period, to protecting that offspring with a flap of skin, to a fully-developed pouch with birth occurring when the offspring has barely sufficient development to find its way from vagina into the pouch.  That appears to be a serious reproductive advantage, per the kangaroo:  a female can have a joey at the foot, one in the pouch and one in the uterus waiting on the pouch to be vacant.
  166. @Talha

    Why go through all that rigmarole if it could be mammals week one?
     
    Who says the rigamarole is not part of the plan? I mean, to you and me it seems like a heck of a lot of work, but to a Being that transcends time-space...there is no waiting; the past/present/future is one and the same. Likewise with the act of creation, simply willing something into being requires no effort. Bringing mammals into position at week one or at week 32 million requires the same non-effort.

    why bother with all the creatures that turned out to be evolutionary dead ends?
     
    That is another judgement call based on assumptions of work/effort.

    That makes no sense to me.
     
    It wouldn't to me either if I started out with the same baseline assumptions.

    I don't personally have issues with the theory of evolution, per se. It's a nice working model (of course there are multiple competing claims to the correct evolutionary model) thus far to explain the mechanics of survival-of-the-fittest - given the evidence we dug up until now (of course a two million old homo sapiens jaw bone inconveniently found in some cave would have us do a heck of a lot of rework). I'd love to see more intermediary forms though; you know like kangaroos with a quarter-developed pouch or something - everything we dig up seems to be too fully developed. Also a very basic organism starting at like two or thee cells would be a great find.

    The real question is; does everything necessarily require a naturalistic explanation? I mean, sure that's one way of demanding an answer (in which case one simply does not believe in the concept of a miracle) and if one does, then there really is no way around it since that is the a priori assumption. But if one does accept the possibility of the occurrence of a miracle, then there is no reason why one cannot accept that evolution does indeed occur, but that a virgin girl in 1st century Palestine can give birth to a son without the necessary male intervention or that the first human beings can be inserted into the world being independent of the evolutionary chain of events, but composed of the same genetic building blocks as everything else on the planet thus giving the impression that they are indeed part of the same exact process.

    Peace.

    multiple competing claims to the correct evolutionary model

    For a contemporary article on Neo-Lamarckism:
    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/411880/a-comeback-for-lamarckian-evolution/

  167. @MarkU
    I'm not really finding a lot to disagree with in your response. You have an internally consistent point of view and though I am not in full agreement with you I can cheerfully agree to disagree. You have successfully made the case that one can disapprove of excessive 'womb productivity' but still be opposed to abortion without being internally inconsistent.

    Our only difference (as far as I can make out) is that I don't see early term abortion as particularly problematic, whereas you appear to be opposed completely. You ought to be aware that there are forms of contraception which are nothing less than very early term abortions, the morning-after pill is one of them.

    Well thanks for the compliment. I do try to be consistent if not coherent. lol

    “Our only difference (as far as I can make out) is that I don’t see early term abortion as particularly problematic, whereas you appear to be opposed completely.”

    Personally, I am opposed to it completely, but not because of Jesus or anything like that, for two reasons. One, I don’t like the idea of abortion being used for birth control because like I said before it, perhaps unintentionally, promotes irresponsibility. Second, a society that eliminates a million future human beings per year has no investment in its future, and while there are certainly other factors at play in the decline of our civilization, abortion on demand is a clear indicator.

    Now with that said, I perfectly realize that banning abortion at any stage will create a whole host of unintended consequences that defeat the purpose. So in the interest of both sides, a compromise should be reached, such as no abortions past the 1st trimester or once the fetus’ heartbeat can be detected, or similar. But the earlier in term the better, I think. In order to placate staunch pragmatists such as Mr. Rational (that’s not an insult, BTW,) a mother or couple should be allowed to request a later term abortion for a fetus determined to possess non treatable physical or mental deformities while in utero, via some kind of hearing, either in front of a medical board or courts or the equivalent.

    And yes, I am aware of abortifacients and how they differ from contraceptives.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    One, I don’t like the idea of abortion being used for birth control because like I said before it, perhaps unintentionally, promotes irresponsibility.
     
    No-fault divorce is much worse.

    Second, a society that eliminates a million future human beings per year has no investment in its future
     
    And a society which has several million deaths per year in infancy and childhood has what, exactly?

    In our modern age it's easy to forget that we used to have 40% or so fatalities before adulthood.  This was NORMAL, if lamented.  Arguably we are practicing dysgenics by making certain that all but a tiny fraction live long enough to pass on whatever flaws would have kept them from breeding in the past.  Aborting a million or more only reflects lack of investment if the ones being aborted are those which would have lived rather than those which would have died.

    OBTW, shout-out noted.

  168. @Twinkie
    That study says nothing about promiscuity. It does says a lot about positive correlations between “openness” and intelligence:

    Notably, the construct of Openness to experience measures the tendency to fantasize, an aesthetic sensitivity, awareness of one’s emotions, preference for novelty, intellectual curiosity, and preference for nontraditional values (McCrae & Costa, 2003).[Boldface mine.]
     
    Yay, openness! Higher tolerance for raging sluts! And transgenders! And pedophiles!

    Yay, openness! Higher tolerance for raging sluts! And transgenders! And pedophiles!

    Raging sluts have little in common with transgenders (a mental illness) and pedophilia (a criminal evil).

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Raging sluts have little in common with transgenders (a mental illness) and pedophilia (a criminal evil).
     
    It’s not about them being similar, but the fact that high IQ is correlated to “openness” and “non-traditional morality.” Meaning, they are more likely than average people to be tolerant of things ordinary people consider negatively.

    Both my wife and I have doctorates, and I can tell you with certainty that our peers in our respective programs were far more supportive off homosexual marriage (and other sundry leftist positions) than we were. I have no doubt that most of them support transgender “rights” today. And, yes, they probably have higher tolerance for “raging sluts” than we do too.
  169. @Dan Hayes
    Audacious Epigone:

    Was the religion of those queried, especially Jews?

    The sample size is really small–only 38 Jews–but 41% said they’re morally opposed. That’s a surprisingly high figure, but that’s what the GSS shows.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Audacious Epigone,

    Thank you very much for your response to my query regarding Jewish survey results. I too am surprised since the few Orthodox Jews of my acquaintance seem to accept abortion, albeit without enthusiasm.

  170. @Anonymous
    It sounds like Rosie is a high IQ low testosterone woman who is projecting her own traits onto everyone else.

    In reality, most people are stupid, unconscientious, have animalistic sex drives, and have low impulse control.

    If she banned birth control we'd get even more idiocracy than we already have. High IQ, high conscientiousness, low testosterone people would just practice abstinence. Blacks, hispanics, and low IQ whites would breed at the same rate as they do in the Congo.

    What’s the end game, then? These traits you put forward as desirable are all negatively correlated with current fertility, and people who have them are birthing below replacement.

  171. @Rosie

    If she banned birth control we’d get even more idiocracy than we already have. High IQ, high conscientiousness, low testosterone people would just practice abstinence. Blacks, hispanics, and low IQ whites would breed at the same rate as they do in the Congo.
     
    I don't know. Birth control can actually be used in a family-enhancing way. There was a time when a man couldn't marry until he could support children. The result of this was very ugly for women. Men will find a way. This usually meant getting seeing prostitutes, and unscrupulous men thought nothing of putting their wives, sisters, and even daughters on the streets.

    With birth control, a young man can marry a young woman and they can work their way towards financial wellbeing together, but only if they have access to birth control.

    unscrupulous men thought nothing of putting their wives, sisters, and even daughters on the streets.

  172. @Twinkie
    By the way, if anyone is interested in more data about abortion, try this: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/usa_abortion_by_race.html

    The data shows revealed preferences, not survey opinions.

    Thanks.

    Yet another example of why my color schematic is superior to the ones employed by everyone else!

    • LOL: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Yet another example of why my color schematic is superior to the ones employed by everyone else!
     
    Indeed!

    It’s a bit depressing, though, that I provided a link to a wealth of data about abortion, but only you commented on it and no one else. I suppose I bear much of the blame for turning the comment section into a Twinkie and Rosie show. Sorry about that - she made it so easy, I couldn’t resist dunking on her a few times. Hopefully she is sincere about using the ignore function and that should cut down on much of the inanity
  173. @iffen
    Yay, openness! Higher tolerance for raging sluts! And transgenders! And pedophiles!

    Raging sluts have little in common with transgenders (a mental illness) and pedophilia (a criminal evil).

    Raging sluts have little in common with transgenders (a mental illness) and pedophilia (a criminal evil).

    It’s not about them being similar, but the fact that high IQ is correlated to “openness” and “non-traditional morality.” Meaning, they are more likely than average people to be tolerant of things ordinary people consider negatively.

    Both my wife and I have doctorates, and I can tell you with certainty that our peers in our respective programs were far more supportive off homosexual marriage (and other sundry leftist positions) than we were. I have no doubt that most of them support transgender “rights” today. And, yes, they probably have higher tolerance for “raging sluts” than we do too.

    • Replies: @iffen
    It’s not about them being similar, but the fact that high IQ is correlated to “openness” and “non-traditional morality.”

    No, it is that you want (? ) us to consider the three as somewhat equivalent.

    You and your wife seem atypical in many ways.
  174. @Audacious Epigone
    Thanks.

    Yet another example of why my color schematic is superior to the ones employed by everyone else!

    Yet another example of why my color schematic is superior to the ones employed by everyone else!

    Indeed!

    It’s a bit depressing, though, that I provided a link to a wealth of data about abortion, but only you commented on it and no one else. I suppose I bear much of the blame for turning the comment section into a Twinkie and Rosie show. Sorry about that – she made it so easy, I couldn’t resist dunking on her a few times. Hopefully she is sincere about using the ignore function and that should cut down on much of the inanity

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Buck up Twinkie. I opened it, started reading and copied it to my notebook.

    "a wealth of data"
     
    The trouble is that it is so data dense, that I—and I suppose others—want some time to read over and digest it. Making a rapid "hot take" risks an embarrassing misstatement of what the data actually show.
  175. @MarkU
    Oh no not intelligent design, you do realise that stuff is actually weaker than the original creation myth?

    Allow me to explain.

    There are two possibilities, either you believe in evolution or you don't.

    If you don't believe in evolution then you have a problem explaining the fossil record. An adherent of the creation myth will presumably argue that either the fossil record was created by God (to test our faith) or by Satan to confuse us (or something similar) Either way, this is pure creation myth stuff and needs no intellectualising at all, the argument is "I can't believe that the world I see around me happened as a naturally occurring thing, therefore I believe in a creator" This point of view is at least internally consistent, I don't agree with it of course but such is life.

    So what has the "intelligent design" team brought to the party? what is their take on evolution and the fossil record?

    If they don't believe in evolution and the fossil record they are in exactly the same boat as the creation myth people and all they have brought is a a load of pseudo-intellectual fluff to make it all sound rational and sciencey and they still have the fossil record to explain away.

    If the "intelligent design" adherents do believe in evolution that is where the fun really begins. In this case we have the rather awkward question of when exactly the designing was being done.

    The first living things we know about are the archaea (previously called archaebacteria) followed by prokaryotes, and this is all the life the planet had for billions of years. Much later we had the eukaryotes (complete with endosymbiosis) then multicellular creatures and cell differentiation. vertebrates and invertebrates, then a well defined progression, fish, amphibians, reptiles and finally birds and mammals, eventually hominids.

    So did God design the archaea and let nature run its course? That leaves a lot of added complexity coming into existence without a hand at the helm, which completely contradicts the whole "intelligent design" philosophy. (hopefully we can leave that option out)

    Or perhaps God was designing all the way, starting with the archaea and spent the next two billion years or so tweaking and re-tweaking prokaryotes (that must have been a great deal of fun for him/her/it) before moving on to more complex things.

    Why go through all that rigmarole if it could be mammals week one? why bother with all the creatures that turned out to be evolutionary dead ends? That makes no sense to me.

    If I were you I would stick with the basic creation myth.

    Oh no not intelligent design,

    Yup. I am an obedient Catholic and subscribe to theistic evolution. The evidence for evolution is pretty clear. I highly recommend Razib Khan’s piece on it: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/evolutionary-theory-crowning-achievement-western-civilization/

    The ID movement is dying out except among low IQ Christians, because much improved genetic science is adding more and more overwhelming evidence on the side of evolution everyday. That doesn’t mean evolution explains everything (certainly not the origin of life, for example), but it is and should be the dominant paradigm given the wealth of data that is now available to support it.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    That doesn’t mean evolution explains everything (certainly not the origin of life, for example)
     
    How could it?  Abiogenesis is inherently a different thing than reproduction of living organisms.  Of course, it helps creatonuts if they confuse that issue (along with many others) so they do it at every opportunity; the muddier the waters, the easier for them.

    I find it interesting to ponder the state of the early Earth.  The Sun brightens by about 1% every 100 million years (as its core turns hydrogen into denser helium it has to increase in temperature to keep from collapsing) so 3 billion years ago it was roughly 70% as bright as today.  At that level of insolation, Earth would have required a massive greenhouse effect to avoid being a near-total iceball.  I suspect that it went through long iceball phases during which GHGs built up due to vulcanism, interspersed with thaws in which weathering ran rampant and pulled CO2 out of the atmosphere to repeat the cycle.

    Both a reducing atmosphere irradiated with UV and hydrothermal vents are conducive to producing proto-organics, a la Miller-Urey.  When water freezes, all contaminants wind up concentrated at the boundaries between ice crystals.  Is that where life arose?  There's no way to know for sure, but maybe if we go looking on e.g. Europa and Titan we can get some hints.
  176. @Twinkie

    Raging sluts have little in common with transgenders (a mental illness) and pedophilia (a criminal evil).
     
    It’s not about them being similar, but the fact that high IQ is correlated to “openness” and “non-traditional morality.” Meaning, they are more likely than average people to be tolerant of things ordinary people consider negatively.

    Both my wife and I have doctorates, and I can tell you with certainty that our peers in our respective programs were far more supportive off homosexual marriage (and other sundry leftist positions) than we were. I have no doubt that most of them support transgender “rights” today. And, yes, they probably have higher tolerance for “raging sluts” than we do too.

    It’s not about them being similar, but the fact that high IQ is correlated to “openness” and “non-traditional morality.”

    No, it is that you want (? ) us to consider the three as somewhat equivalent.

    You and your wife seem atypical in many ways.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    somewhat equivalent.
     
    Only to the extent that they are all things those with traditional morality consider negative (to varying degrees, of course - I hope no one is crazy enough to think that promiscuity is as morally egregious as pedophilia).
    , @Twinkie

    You and your wife seem atypical in many ways.
     
    Yes. But these things are in a spectrum with a certain distribution pattern. Those with doctorates are much more likely to be leftists, but there are still some rightists. We just happen to be two of the latter.
  177. @iffen
    It’s not about them being similar, but the fact that high IQ is correlated to “openness” and “non-traditional morality.”

    No, it is that you want (? ) us to consider the three as somewhat equivalent.

    You and your wife seem atypical in many ways.

    somewhat equivalent.

    Only to the extent that they are all things those with traditional morality consider negative (to varying degrees, of course – I hope no one is crazy enough to think that promiscuity is as morally egregious as pedophilia).

    • Replies: @iffen
    I hope no one is crazy enough to think that promiscuity is as morally egregious as pedophilia).

    Then I think that you shouldn't string them together like that.
  178. @iffen
    It’s not about them being similar, but the fact that high IQ is correlated to “openness” and “non-traditional morality.”

    No, it is that you want (? ) us to consider the three as somewhat equivalent.

    You and your wife seem atypical in many ways.

    You and your wife seem atypical in many ways.

    Yes. But these things are in a spectrum with a certain distribution pattern. Those with doctorates are much more likely to be leftists, but there are still some rightists. We just happen to be two of the latter.

    • Replies: @iffen
    But these things are in a spectrum with a certain distribution pattern.

    Doesn't cover the race, religion, and (Twinkie) stuff.
  179. @Twinkie

    You and your wife seem atypical in many ways.
     
    Yes. But these things are in a spectrum with a certain distribution pattern. Those with doctorates are much more likely to be leftists, but there are still some rightists. We just happen to be two of the latter.

    But these things are in a spectrum with a certain distribution pattern.

    Doesn’t cover the race, religion, and (Twinkie) stuff.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Doesn’t cover the race, religion, and (Twinkie) stuff.
     
    Do elaborate.
  180. @Twinkie

    somewhat equivalent.
     
    Only to the extent that they are all things those with traditional morality consider negative (to varying degrees, of course - I hope no one is crazy enough to think that promiscuity is as morally egregious as pedophilia).

    I hope no one is crazy enough to think that promiscuity is as morally egregious as pedophilia).

    Then I think that you shouldn’t string them together like that.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Then I think that you shouldn’t string them together like that.
     
    Why not? They are all things the Church considers mortal sins that endanger and damage human souls. And they have been demonstrated to cause suffering and dislocation here on earth.

    That there is a hierarchy among them doesn’t change that fact. It’s not like I grouped one item of virtue with two items of immorality. I suspect even Rosie knows promiscuity is a bad thing - bad for the individual and bad for the society at large. If she were so confident that it were such a good thing or even an indifferent thing, she wouldn’t go to such extreme and bizarre lengths to defend it.

    I don’t know what’s really in her heart, but she seems like she harbors a great deal of insecurity about her past sexual history, precisely because she knows - deep inside - it was not good. That’s why she hysterically alternates between playing the victim by accusing me of wanting to stone women and defiantly screaming “What of it?” And going so far as to desperately linking, anything, positive (“high IQ correlation!”) to it.
  181. @MarkU
    Given that this thread has been almost entirely hijacked by a discussion about divorce and alimony, I thought I should bring it back on topic.

    As an atheist I have a clear cut moral standpoint, which is that a foetus (proper spelling) starts off as a bundle of undifferentiated cells (not a person) but ends up as a person. Essentially, early stage abortions are not a moral issue as far as I am concerned but late stage abortions definitely are. So where should the line be drawn? As I am not God (particularly as there is no such animal anyway) I am modest enough to admit that that is NOT my call but my own attitude is that some sort of line should be drawn. I fully agree that any determination of where that line should be drawn is liable to be somewhat arbitrary but that is just a fact of life. I reject utterly the line of argument that conflates potential with actuality, that line leads to complete insanity (every sperm is sacred etc)

    I find it somewhat curious that the same people who complain about the rewarding of womb productivity (not without justification in my opinion) should be amongst those complaining when pregnancies are not brought to term, I would have thought they would approve.

    To sum up, I do not believe it is my right (nor anybody else's) to compel a woman to have a child she does not want, though I do believe that society has a right to demand that termination is done in a timely fashion if it is to be done at all. I do not believe that what the world needs right now is more babies brought up by irresponsible mothers who didn't want them in the first place and likely to grow up with the same bad attitudes that their parents had.

    I reject utterly the line of argument that conflates potential with actuality, that line leads to complete insanity (every sperm is sacred etc)

    So, in other words, you’re full of crap. A spermatozoon has absolutely no potential to become a human being. In the Catholic religion, which is as 100% pro-life as you can get, not only are nocturnal emissions not considered mass murder, they’re not even considered sinful.

    But if you cannot understand the simple and logical necessity that God exists, then I do not expect you to understand the difference between haploids and diploids, still less that between potency and act.

  182. @Mr. Rational

    Do you classify a concept of “soul” in the same category as the concepts of “mermaids, faeries, goblins etc”? If so, why?
     
    The concept of faeries was invoked to explain the phenomenon of birth defects ("changelings").  One typical response was to "return" the defective children to the faeries, which meant death by exposure or predators.

    We know how most birth defects come about now.  Faeries are not taken seriously any more; they came from a logical fallacy, inventing explanations to fill a space left by ignorance.

    We have no firm evidence that there is a "soul" that exists separately from the brain, or continues to exist after the death of same.  We do have firm evidence that disruption of the operation of certain parts of the brain produces "out of body" experiences, because we can reproduce them under laboratory conditions.

    Few people really want to cease existing.  The idea of a soul and an afterlife is attractive.  So is the idea of blaming faeries for birth defects actually caused by one's own negligence, such as consuming teratogens early in pregnancy.  That doesn't make it true.

    We have no firm evidence that there is a “soul” that exists

    Bodies are irrefutable evidence that souls exist. The soul is of itself and per se the form of the body. Without the soul the body would have no identity or substance, e.g. a real horse would be no different from a shape of a horse formed by clouds. It is the soul that makes living beings substantial realities. You will note that this definition has nothing to do with “consciousness” (a bullshit modern contrivance of a term) or immortality. It is a simple question of matter and form.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    People really shouldn't try to prove that their user ID is ironic:

    Bodies are irrefutable evidence that souls exist. The soul is of itself and per se the form of the body. Without the soul the body would have no identity or substance, e.g. a real horse would be no different from a shape of a horse formed by clouds.
     
    Animals, trees, and rocks have form and substance.  They have identity, depending how you define it.  So they ALL have souls?  Are you an animist?

    When the body dissolves and loses "identity" and "substance" as it does after death, does the "soul" evaporate as well?  Because you mis-quoted me, omitting "separately from the brain", you failed to address that.  Not very intelligent.  Or honest.
  183. @iffen
    I hope no one is crazy enough to think that promiscuity is as morally egregious as pedophilia).

    Then I think that you shouldn't string them together like that.

    Then I think that you shouldn’t string them together like that.

    Why not? They are all things the Church considers mortal sins that endanger and damage human souls. And they have been demonstrated to cause suffering and dislocation here on earth.

    That there is a hierarchy among them doesn’t change that fact. It’s not like I grouped one item of virtue with two items of immorality. I suspect even Rosie knows promiscuity is a bad thing – bad for the individual and bad for the society at large. If she were so confident that it were such a good thing or even an indifferent thing, she wouldn’t go to such extreme and bizarre lengths to defend it.

    I don’t know what’s really in her heart, but she seems like she harbors a great deal of insecurity about her past sexual history, precisely because she knows – deep inside – it was not good. That’s why she hysterically alternates between playing the victim by accusing me of wanting to stone women and defiantly screaming “What of it?” And going so far as to desperately linking, anything, positive (“high IQ correlation!”) to it.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Why not?

    You gave the why not here:

    I hope no one is crazy enough to think that promiscuity is as morally egregious as pedophilia).
    , @iffen
    but she seems like she harbors a great deal of insecurity about her past sexual history

    It is a little creepy for you to dwell upon this.
  184. @Rosie
    Calling all reformed intelligent raging sluts, get out your violins:

    It appears Black Pigeon Lies has been Shoah'd

    https://youtu.be/xHmS5VC7j20

    Black Pigeon doesn’t always speak, but when he does, he sounds like a gay marine biologist.

    • LOL: Rosie
  185. @iffen
    But these things are in a spectrum with a certain distribution pattern.

    Doesn't cover the race, religion, and (Twinkie) stuff.

    Doesn’t cover the race, religion, and (Twinkie) stuff.

    Do elaborate.

    • Replies: @iffen
    You are of different races, which is atypical.

    You are Catholic which is atypical of E. Asians.

    Twinkie stuff

    It is atypical to adhere to "another" race and culture.

    Some of this might not apply to your wife.
  186. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    "Douchebaggery" is not a crime or serious offense, so you'd have to have no-fault, or de facto no-fault, divorce in order to allow divorces for it. One party's crime or misbehavior does not excuse another's, so a husband's "douchebaggery" would not excuse the wife's behavior.

    What about child support payments for the divorced woman and her child by another man? Do you believe she should be entitled to them in addition to alimony?

    The original justification for alimony was that a woman would receive the support she would have received had the marriage continued, in a context where woman had to depend on husbands for material support and divorce was rare and discouraged. That is obviously no longer the context as divorce is now very common and women can be economically independent through employment and have access to welfare. What would be the justification today for alimony and a large share in the ex-husband's assets, especially as divorce is common and no longer taboo, and women form new relationships and marriages after they get divorced?

    In other words, alimony was originally like an insurance payout for a rare event. Divorce rarely happened, and it happened in a society where women did not have economic independence. Alimony was like an insurance payout for a very rare and unfortunate event.

    But now, divorce is very common, mostly initiated by women, and women have employment opportunities and access to welfare. The original rationale is gone. Insurers don’t underwrite policies for highly likely events to people who don’t need it.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    In other words, alimony was originally like an insurance payout for a rare event.
     
    No. It was and is enforcement of a contract by specific performance.
  187. @Twinkie

    Then I think that you shouldn’t string them together like that.
     
    Why not? They are all things the Church considers mortal sins that endanger and damage human souls. And they have been demonstrated to cause suffering and dislocation here on earth.

    That there is a hierarchy among them doesn’t change that fact. It’s not like I grouped one item of virtue with two items of immorality. I suspect even Rosie knows promiscuity is a bad thing - bad for the individual and bad for the society at large. If she were so confident that it were such a good thing or even an indifferent thing, she wouldn’t go to such extreme and bizarre lengths to defend it.

    I don’t know what’s really in her heart, but she seems like she harbors a great deal of insecurity about her past sexual history, precisely because she knows - deep inside - it was not good. That’s why she hysterically alternates between playing the victim by accusing me of wanting to stone women and defiantly screaming “What of it?” And going so far as to desperately linking, anything, positive (“high IQ correlation!”) to it.

    Why not?

    You gave the why not here:

    I hope no one is crazy enough to think that promiscuity is as morally egregious as pedophilia).

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    A difference in the hierarchy of the immoral doesn’t make a part of the set moral. Why are you obstinately refusing to see this?
  188. @Twinkie

    Then I think that you shouldn’t string them together like that.
     
    Why not? They are all things the Church considers mortal sins that endanger and damage human souls. And they have been demonstrated to cause suffering and dislocation here on earth.

    That there is a hierarchy among them doesn’t change that fact. It’s not like I grouped one item of virtue with two items of immorality. I suspect even Rosie knows promiscuity is a bad thing - bad for the individual and bad for the society at large. If she were so confident that it were such a good thing or even an indifferent thing, she wouldn’t go to such extreme and bizarre lengths to defend it.

    I don’t know what’s really in her heart, but she seems like she harbors a great deal of insecurity about her past sexual history, precisely because she knows - deep inside - it was not good. That’s why she hysterically alternates between playing the victim by accusing me of wanting to stone women and defiantly screaming “What of it?” And going so far as to desperately linking, anything, positive (“high IQ correlation!”) to it.

    but she seems like she harbors a great deal of insecurity about her past sexual history

    It is a little creepy for you to dwell upon this.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    It is a little creepy for you to dwell upon this.
     
    If you say so. She made it a part of the discussion. And she continued to bring it up even unbidden. At some point it becomes obvious.

    But as usual, you can’t help but attribute negativity to me. Ah, well, the brief comity was nice while it lasted. I guess it’s back to you leaving a trail of curse words in your wake.
  189. @Twinkie

    Doesn’t cover the race, religion, and (Twinkie) stuff.
     
    Do elaborate.

    You are of different races, which is atypical.

    You are Catholic which is atypical of E. Asians.

    Twinkie stuff

    It is atypical to adhere to “another” race and culture.

    Some of this might not apply to your wife.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    You are Catholic which is atypical of E. Asians.
     
    Catholic population is increasing in East Asia. And South Korea and Japan have had highly influential minority Catholic populations for decades. South Korea today is about 20% Protestant and 8% Catholic while Koreans in America are 60% Protestant and 10% Catholic. And they tend to have high intensity religiosity (very few in name only).

    I’m a convert, by the way, as is my wife. I grew up an evangelical and my wife was mainline.

    You are of different races, which is atypical... It is atypical to adhere to “another” race and culture.
     
    Koreans and Japanese have been quite assimilative in America with high intermarriage rates. Not unusual at all. They disappear into “whiteness” regularly.
  190. @iffen
    but she seems like she harbors a great deal of insecurity about her past sexual history

    It is a little creepy for you to dwell upon this.

    It is a little creepy for you to dwell upon this.

    If you say so. She made it a part of the discussion. And she continued to bring it up even unbidden. At some point it becomes obvious.

    But as usual, you can’t help but attribute negativity to me. Ah, well, the brief comity was nice while it lasted. I guess it’s back to you leaving a trail of curse words in your wake.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Ah, well, the brief comity was nice while it lasted.

    To a certain exent it is up to you.

    I didn't attribute negativity to you (whatever that is.) I just meant that in the ongoing comments you seem to return to this from time to time and I'm not sure of its importance in "the big picture."
  191. @iffen
    Why not?

    You gave the why not here:

    I hope no one is crazy enough to think that promiscuity is as morally egregious as pedophilia).

    A difference in the hierarchy of the immoral doesn’t make a part of the set moral. Why are you obstinately refusing to see this?

    • Replies: @iffen
    Why are you calling me obstinate just because I refuse to accept your equating apples to oranges?
  192. @Twinkie

    It is a little creepy for you to dwell upon this.
     
    If you say so. She made it a part of the discussion. And she continued to bring it up even unbidden. At some point it becomes obvious.

    But as usual, you can’t help but attribute negativity to me. Ah, well, the brief comity was nice while it lasted. I guess it’s back to you leaving a trail of curse words in your wake.

    Ah, well, the brief comity was nice while it lasted.

    To a certain exent it is up to you.

    I didn’t attribute negativity to you (whatever that is.) I just meant that in the ongoing comments you seem to return to this from time to time and I’m not sure of its importance in “the big picture.”

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    negativity
     
    “Creepy” is not negative? Come on.
  193. @Twinkie
    A difference in the hierarchy of the immoral doesn’t make a part of the set moral. Why are you obstinately refusing to see this?

    Why are you calling me obstinate just because I refuse to accept your equating apples to oranges?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    accept your equating apples to oranges?
     
    I didn’t equate them. I said both were fruit.
  194. @iffen
    You are of different races, which is atypical.

    You are Catholic which is atypical of E. Asians.

    Twinkie stuff

    It is atypical to adhere to "another" race and culture.

    Some of this might not apply to your wife.

    You are Catholic which is atypical of E. Asians.

    Catholic population is increasing in East Asia. And South Korea and Japan have had highly influential minority Catholic populations for decades. South Korea today is about 20% Protestant and 8% Catholic while Koreans in America are 60% Protestant and 10% Catholic. And they tend to have high intensity religiosity (very few in name only).

    I’m a convert, by the way, as is my wife. I grew up an evangelical and my wife was mainline.

    You are of different races, which is atypical… It is atypical to adhere to “another” race and culture.

    Koreans and Japanese have been quite assimilative in America with high intermarriage rates. Not unusual at all. They disappear into “whiteness” regularly.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Thanks for giving the figures on atypical.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    I didn't know more than 1-in-4 South Koreans are Christians. Thanks.
  195. @iffen
    Ah, well, the brief comity was nice while it lasted.

    To a certain exent it is up to you.

    I didn't attribute negativity to you (whatever that is.) I just meant that in the ongoing comments you seem to return to this from time to time and I'm not sure of its importance in "the big picture."

    negativity

    “Creepy” is not negative? Come on.

    • Replies: @iffen
    “Creepy” is not negative?

    I accept this, but it is odd that you mix in "her" supposed sexual behavior into the discussion "frequently."
  196. @Twinkie

    Yet another example of why my color schematic is superior to the ones employed by everyone else!
     
    Indeed!

    It’s a bit depressing, though, that I provided a link to a wealth of data about abortion, but only you commented on it and no one else. I suppose I bear much of the blame for turning the comment section into a Twinkie and Rosie show. Sorry about that - she made it so easy, I couldn’t resist dunking on her a few times. Hopefully she is sincere about using the ignore function and that should cut down on much of the inanity

    Buck up Twinkie. I opened it, started reading and copied it to my notebook.

    “a wealth of data”

    The trouble is that it is so data dense, that I—and I suppose others—want some time to read over and digest it. Making a rapid “hot take” risks an embarrassing misstatement of what the data actually show.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Fair. And prudent.
  197. @iffen
    Why are you calling me obstinate just because I refuse to accept your equating apples to oranges?

    accept your equating apples to oranges?

    I didn’t equate them. I said both were fruit.

  198. @Rosie

    Relax. I was teasing you a little. It’s so easy to have fun with you, Rosie.

    Of course, judging from what you revealed about yourself, I suspect many other men have said the same.
     
    School marm,

    I understand dehumanizing racial epithets are not allowed. Is there an exception for obvious and deliberate provocations?

    No, as long as they don’t seriously reveal personal information or advocate illegal activity. I really don’t like the thought of suppressing comments.

    You can just ignore it. I don’t think Twinkie is going to instigate or continue to chide if you don’t respond.

    • Replies: @iffen
    I don’t think Twinkie is going to instigate or continue to chide if you don’t respond.

    LOL
    , @Twinkie
    I’m really sincere about hoping she uses the ignore function. I also wish she would stop randomly dropping my name (negatively) in totally unrelated comments with other commenters.

    And not cursing at me is always a bonus.
  199. @Almost Missouri
    Buck up Twinkie. I opened it, started reading and copied it to my notebook.

    "a wealth of data"
     
    The trouble is that it is so data dense, that I—and I suppose others—want some time to read over and digest it. Making a rapid "hot take" risks an embarrassing misstatement of what the data actually show.

    Fair. And prudent.

  200. @Audacious Epigone
    No, as long as they don't seriously reveal personal information or advocate illegal activity. I really don't like the thought of suppressing comments.

    You can just ignore it. I don't think Twinkie is going to instigate or continue to chide if you don't respond.

    I don’t think Twinkie is going to instigate or continue to chide if you don’t respond.

    LOL

  201. @Twinkie

    You are Catholic which is atypical of E. Asians.
     
    Catholic population is increasing in East Asia. And South Korea and Japan have had highly influential minority Catholic populations for decades. South Korea today is about 20% Protestant and 8% Catholic while Koreans in America are 60% Protestant and 10% Catholic. And they tend to have high intensity religiosity (very few in name only).

    I’m a convert, by the way, as is my wife. I grew up an evangelical and my wife was mainline.

    You are of different races, which is atypical... It is atypical to adhere to “another” race and culture.
     
    Koreans and Japanese have been quite assimilative in America with high intermarriage rates. Not unusual at all. They disappear into “whiteness” regularly.

    Thanks for giving the figures on atypical.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    atypical
     
    Ok. Atypical, but not unusual.
    , @Twinkie
    By the way, by the same logic, my being Asian is already pretty atypical (5% of the gen pop), no?
  202. @Audacious Epigone
    No, as long as they don't seriously reveal personal information or advocate illegal activity. I really don't like the thought of suppressing comments.

    You can just ignore it. I don't think Twinkie is going to instigate or continue to chide if you don't respond.

    I’m really sincere about hoping she uses the ignore function. I also wish she would stop randomly dropping my name (negatively) in totally unrelated comments with other commenters.

    And not cursing at me is always a bonus.

  203. @Twinkie

    negativity
     
    “Creepy” is not negative? Come on.

    “Creepy” is not negative?

    I accept this, but it is odd that you mix in “her” supposed sexual behavior into the discussion “frequently.”

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I accept this, but it is odd
     
    Good grief, man, a lot of your comments are “odd,” seemingly having zilch to do with the topics at hand. Do we really want to keep belaboring this or do you wish to move on and maintain our newfound comity?

    I promise not to bring up Rosie’s self-declared “raging slut-ness” provided she doesn’t rub our noses in it every time the topic of number of sexual partners and negative correlations to good things in life come up. Ok?

    In return, can you also agree not to be odd and try to steer the conversation into my alleged personality defects? In other words, can you discuss topics substantively without going personal? Pretty please?

  204. @iffen
    Thanks for giving the figures on atypical.

    atypical

    Ok. Atypical, but not unusual.

  205. @iffen
    “Creepy” is not negative?

    I accept this, but it is odd that you mix in "her" supposed sexual behavior into the discussion "frequently."

    I accept this, but it is odd

    Good grief, man, a lot of your comments are “odd,” seemingly having zilch to do with the topics at hand. Do we really want to keep belaboring this or do you wish to move on and maintain our newfound comity?

    I promise not to bring up Rosie’s self-declared “raging slut-ness” provided she doesn’t rub our noses in it every time the topic of number of sexual partners and negative correlations to good things in life come up. Ok?

    In return, can you also agree not to be odd and try to steer the conversation into my alleged personality defects? In other words, can you discuss topics substantively without going personal? Pretty please?

    • Replies: @iffen
    maintain our newfound comity

    I like, I love it, I want some more of it.
    , @iffen
    I promise not to bring up Rosie’s self-declared “raging slut-ness”

    I missed the comment where she copped to being a raging slut. Even so, if she is or is not, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

  206. @iffen
    Thanks for giving the figures on atypical.

    By the way, by the same logic, my being Asian is already pretty atypical (5% of the gen pop), no?

    • Replies: @iffen
    Sure, but I am not alarmed.
    , @iffen
    Considering your memory problems you might not recall that I have personal experience with the descendants of Korean War brides at two diffent points in my life. You might appreciate my anecdote from elementary school. One brother, the younger one, was small framed, the older brother was large framed, crew cut matched perfectly. Kids were picking on the younger one. The older brother cleaned some clocks. AFAIK, they didn't have any more difficulties in elementary school.
  207. @Twinkie
    By the way, by the same logic, my being Asian is already pretty atypical (5% of the gen pop), no?

    Sure, but I am not alarmed.

  208. @Twinkie

    I accept this, but it is odd
     
    Good grief, man, a lot of your comments are “odd,” seemingly having zilch to do with the topics at hand. Do we really want to keep belaboring this or do you wish to move on and maintain our newfound comity?

    I promise not to bring up Rosie’s self-declared “raging slut-ness” provided she doesn’t rub our noses in it every time the topic of number of sexual partners and negative correlations to good things in life come up. Ok?

    In return, can you also agree not to be odd and try to steer the conversation into my alleged personality defects? In other words, can you discuss topics substantively without going personal? Pretty please?

    maintain our newfound comity

    I like, I love it, I want some more of it.

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    You try so hard--and sometimes you can rise above it!
  209. @Twinkie

    I accept this, but it is odd
     
    Good grief, man, a lot of your comments are “odd,” seemingly having zilch to do with the topics at hand. Do we really want to keep belaboring this or do you wish to move on and maintain our newfound comity?

    I promise not to bring up Rosie’s self-declared “raging slut-ness” provided she doesn’t rub our noses in it every time the topic of number of sexual partners and negative correlations to good things in life come up. Ok?

    In return, can you also agree not to be odd and try to steer the conversation into my alleged personality defects? In other words, can you discuss topics substantively without going personal? Pretty please?

    I promise not to bring up Rosie’s self-declared “raging slut-ness”

    I missed the comment where she copped to being a raging slut. Even so, if she is or is not, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
     
    You don’t think it has anything to do with her rabid defense of “really, promiscuity doesn’t negatively affect women at all, it’s all the charming men’s fault” mantra?

    I am getting the sense that you are not interested in the said comity.
    , @notanon

    I missed the comment where...
     
    then you need to retune
  210. @Twinkie
    By the way, by the same logic, my being Asian is already pretty atypical (5% of the gen pop), no?

    Considering your memory problems you might not recall that I have personal experience with the descendants of Korean War brides at two diffent points in my life. You might appreciate my anecdote from elementary school. One brother, the younger one, was small framed, the older brother was large framed, crew cut matched perfectly. Kids were picking on the younger one. The older brother cleaned some clocks. AFAIK, they didn’t have any more difficulties in elementary school.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    older brother was large framed, crew cut matched perfectly.
     
    That was me!

    No. I just look the same.

    Comity now - pinkie promise?
  211. @iffen
    Considering your memory problems you might not recall that I have personal experience with the descendants of Korean War brides at two diffent points in my life. You might appreciate my anecdote from elementary school. One brother, the younger one, was small framed, the older brother was large framed, crew cut matched perfectly. Kids were picking on the younger one. The older brother cleaned some clocks. AFAIK, they didn't have any more difficulties in elementary school.

    older brother was large framed, crew cut matched perfectly.

    That was me!

    No. I just look the same.

    Comity now – pinkie promise?

  212. @iffen
    I promise not to bring up Rosie’s self-declared “raging slut-ness”

    I missed the comment where she copped to being a raging slut. Even so, if she is or is not, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

    what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

    You don’t think it has anything to do with her rabid defense of “really, promiscuity doesn’t negatively affect women at all, it’s all the charming men’s fault” mantra?

    I am getting the sense that you are not interested in the said comity.

    • Replies: @iffen
    I am getting the sense that you are not interested in the said comity.

    I don't believe that comment has anything to do with said comity. Just a little humor between avid commenters at AE's blog.

    If.

    I don't know whether she is (was) and if so, does "it" affect her thinking on the subject, and if it does affect her thinking what those effects might be.

    I understand the subject as casual sex and its detrimental effects upon individuals and society (if any).

    As you pointed out, she doesn't (and can't) speak for all white people and by the same logic she can't speak for all raging sluts (even if she is qualified).

  213. @Anonymous
    In other words, alimony was originally like an insurance payout for a rare event. Divorce rarely happened, and it happened in a society where women did not have economic independence. Alimony was like an insurance payout for a very rare and unfortunate event.

    But now, divorce is very common, mostly initiated by women, and women have employment opportunities and access to welfare. The original rationale is gone. Insurers don't underwrite policies for highly likely events to people who don't need it.

    In other words, alimony was originally like an insurance payout for a rare event.

    No. It was and is enforcement of a contract by specific performance.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    No. It was and is enforcement of a contract by specific performance.
     
    Cone to think of it, that gives me an idea. Would an actual insurance policy, with premiums, risk-sharing, and third-party payouts, work to protect homemakers?
  214. @Rosie
    Calling all reformed intelligent raging sluts, get out your violins:

    It appears Black Pigeon Lies has been Shoah'd

    https://youtu.be/xHmS5VC7j20

    Relying on people that consider you deplorable to provide you with the platform by which to undermine their worldview can either be chalked up to being very naive or extremely shortsighted – either way, it’s a failure out the gate.

    Peace.

  215. @Audacious Epigone
    The sample size is really small--only 38 Jews--but 41% said they're morally opposed. That's a surprisingly high figure, but that's what the GSS shows.

    Audacious Epigone,

    Thank you very much for your response to my query regarding Jewish survey results. I too am surprised since the few Orthodox Jews of my acquaintance seem to accept abortion, albeit without enthusiasm.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  216. @iffen
    I promise not to bring up Rosie’s self-declared “raging slut-ness”

    I missed the comment where she copped to being a raging slut. Even so, if she is or is not, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

    I missed the comment where…

    then you need to retune

  217. @Twinkie

    what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
     
    You don’t think it has anything to do with her rabid defense of “really, promiscuity doesn’t negatively affect women at all, it’s all the charming men’s fault” mantra?

    I am getting the sense that you are not interested in the said comity.

    I am getting the sense that you are not interested in the said comity.

    I don’t believe that comment has anything to do with said comity. Just a little humor between avid commenters at AE’s blog.

    If.

    I don’t know whether she is (was) and if so, does “it” affect her thinking on the subject, and if it does affect her thinking what those effects might be.

    I understand the subject as casual sex and its detrimental effects upon individuals and society (if any).

    As you pointed out, she doesn’t (and can’t) speak for all white people and by the same logic she can’t speak for all raging sluts (even if she is qualified).

  218. @Talha

    Why go through all that rigmarole if it could be mammals week one?
     
    Who says the rigamarole is not part of the plan? I mean, to you and me it seems like a heck of a lot of work, but to a Being that transcends time-space...there is no waiting; the past/present/future is one and the same. Likewise with the act of creation, simply willing something into being requires no effort. Bringing mammals into position at week one or at week 32 million requires the same non-effort.

    why bother with all the creatures that turned out to be evolutionary dead ends?
     
    That is another judgement call based on assumptions of work/effort.

    That makes no sense to me.
     
    It wouldn't to me either if I started out with the same baseline assumptions.

    I don't personally have issues with the theory of evolution, per se. It's a nice working model (of course there are multiple competing claims to the correct evolutionary model) thus far to explain the mechanics of survival-of-the-fittest - given the evidence we dug up until now (of course a two million old homo sapiens jaw bone inconveniently found in some cave would have us do a heck of a lot of rework). I'd love to see more intermediary forms though; you know like kangaroos with a quarter-developed pouch or something - everything we dig up seems to be too fully developed. Also a very basic organism starting at like two or thee cells would be a great find.

    The real question is; does everything necessarily require a naturalistic explanation? I mean, sure that's one way of demanding an answer (in which case one simply does not believe in the concept of a miracle) and if one does, then there really is no way around it since that is the a priori assumption. But if one does accept the possibility of the occurrence of a miracle, then there is no reason why one cannot accept that evolution does indeed occur, but that a virgin girl in 1st century Palestine can give birth to a son without the necessary male intervention or that the first human beings can be inserted into the world being independent of the evolutionary chain of events, but composed of the same genetic building blocks as everything else on the planet thus giving the impression that they are indeed part of the same exact process.

    Peace.

    “to you and me it seems like a heck of a lot of work, but to a Being that transcends time-space…there is no waiting; the past/present/future is one and the same. Likewise with the act of creation, simply willing something into being requires no effort.”

    Indeed, the very concept of “effort”, applied to omnipotent God, seems a kind of micro-blasphemy, perhaps against God, but certainly against logic.

    “That makes no sense to me.”

    “It wouldn’t to me either if I started out with the same baseline assumptions.”

    A lot of neo-atheist “debunking” of religion consists of applying mundane and finite concepts to the ineffable and infinite. Obviously these concepts won’t fit, but the atheist mistakes this misfit for a refutation.

    To make an allegory that is less at the extreme, everyone can accept that the human mind, the human being, is vastly more sophisticated and powerful than the mind and being of a beetle. So much so, that a beetle may not even recognize a human in the rare event that it comes into the path of one. Indeed, as the vast majority of beetles probably have never encountered a human, perhaps beetles only hear of humans as legendary super-powerful creatures of beetle myth. And even if a beetle accepts the reality of humans and has the fortune or misfortune actually to encounter a human, could this rare beetle ever understand the the actions, the motives of the human? Probably not. In most cases, the best the beetle could do is to have a kind of spiritual humility that there is something way above itself, which it cannot really comprehend but which is no less real because of that.

    There is nothing strange or irrational in the preceding paragraph, right?

    Now, what if there is something as far above us as we are above the lowly beetle?

    The atheist may retort, “Well, there isn’t!”

    But how is atheist retort any different from the beetle scientist loudly rejecting the reality of “these so called humans, these gods looming down from the sky, this Flying Spaghetti Monster”?

    • Replies: @Talha

    the very concept of “effort”, applied to omnipotent God
     
    I remember the sense of wonder in my son's eyes when we were recently on a boat and I pointed out the many bubbles in the froth and said; you know, God knew about all of these bubbles and when each of them would pop and all the bubbles you cannot see and all those bubbles that have possibly existed and will ever exist and their sizes and when each of them would pop "before" (does time even mean anything outside our framework?) He created the universe?

    When one says the Divine is All-Knowing, it doesn't just mean a kind of simple multiplication of the information that we know. It is a fully comprehensive and encompassing knowledge. It is the knowledge of what exists and what does not exist and what will never exist. The world that we know which is a result of our timeline and the decisions humans have made is a mere speck. The Divine is aware of that as well as all the possible permutations of all the possible universes if any number of humans had made different decisions or butterflies would have flapped their wings a lesser or more times or if reptiles had remained ascendant on Earth. In this respect, there is no difference in what-is-and-has-been or what-was-not-and-could-never-be - all of it is known in its precise detail down to its most subtle form - in the Perfect Knowledge of the Divine. Thus, it's not some effort at some experiment to arrive at some unknown conclusion.

    could this rare beetle ever understand the the actions, the motives of the human? Probably not.
     
    A Persian mystic (Rumi [ra] perhaps - I forget) talked about the ant crawling across an elegant rug in a royal palace created by a master weaver and yet all it could comprehend was how frustrating it was that the contour kept changing which made its walking more difficult.

    The atheist may retort, “Well, there isn’t!”
     
    Our friend here seems to be quite civil unlike many very-pushy atheists. The issue is that the two perspectives are simply unresolvable. Whether one chooses to be believe that there something that exists beyond the observable senses or that there isn't; one has taken an axiomatic stance on an initial premise, everything else flows downhill from there.

    The issue is, science (though it's wonderful in helping us get to the moon and back) simply is not equipped - nor actually interested - in resolving that question since its purview is in the observable phenomenal world as Porf. Hugh Gauche (of Cornell Univ.) wrote in his wonderful book summarizing the philosophy of science and its methodology:
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/scientific-method-in-brief/sciences-presuppositions/7BB9243763C4B206BAFF9E3175B484B0
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/scientific-method-in-brief/sciences-powers-and-limits/43B0E06002B2D81AAF354A271E4B1508

    “Several limitations of science are rather obvious and hence are not controversial. The most obvious limitation is that scientists will never observe, know, and explain everything about even science’s own domain, the physical world. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, Godel’s theorem and chaos theory set fundamental limits. (pg 96)...
    Methodological naturalism contrasts with metaphysical or ontological naturalism that asserts natural entities exist but nothing is supernatural, as claimed by atheists. Hence, methodological naturalism does not deny that the supernatural exists but rather stipulates that it is outside science’s purview. Unfortunately, methodological naturalism is sometimes confused with ontological naturalism. To insist that science obeys methodological naturalism and that science supports atheism is to get high marks for enthusiasm but low marks for logic. (pg 98)”
    Scientific Method in Brief (Cambridge Univ. Press)

    Peace.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Though no one asked, I'll interject that my agnosticism is pithily summed up as follows--by definition, if the supernatural is a thing, it cannot be definitively detected by the natural.
  219. @Talha

    Why go through all that rigmarole if it could be mammals week one?
     
    Who says the rigamarole is not part of the plan? I mean, to you and me it seems like a heck of a lot of work, but to a Being that transcends time-space...there is no waiting; the past/present/future is one and the same. Likewise with the act of creation, simply willing something into being requires no effort. Bringing mammals into position at week one or at week 32 million requires the same non-effort.

    why bother with all the creatures that turned out to be evolutionary dead ends?
     
    That is another judgement call based on assumptions of work/effort.

    That makes no sense to me.
     
    It wouldn't to me either if I started out with the same baseline assumptions.

    I don't personally have issues with the theory of evolution, per se. It's a nice working model (of course there are multiple competing claims to the correct evolutionary model) thus far to explain the mechanics of survival-of-the-fittest - given the evidence we dug up until now (of course a two million old homo sapiens jaw bone inconveniently found in some cave would have us do a heck of a lot of rework). I'd love to see more intermediary forms though; you know like kangaroos with a quarter-developed pouch or something - everything we dig up seems to be too fully developed. Also a very basic organism starting at like two or thee cells would be a great find.

    The real question is; does everything necessarily require a naturalistic explanation? I mean, sure that's one way of demanding an answer (in which case one simply does not believe in the concept of a miracle) and if one does, then there really is no way around it since that is the a priori assumption. But if one does accept the possibility of the occurrence of a miracle, then there is no reason why one cannot accept that evolution does indeed occur, but that a virgin girl in 1st century Palestine can give birth to a son without the necessary male intervention or that the first human beings can be inserted into the world being independent of the evolutionary chain of events, but composed of the same genetic building blocks as everything else on the planet thus giving the impression that they are indeed part of the same exact process.

    Peace.

    “I’d love to see more intermediary forms though; you know like kangaroos with a quarter-developed pouch or something – everything we dig up seems to be too fully developed.”

    Yes, this is the basic problem with Darwinian-style evolution. By his reasoning on incremental-changes, we should be finding incremental forms everywhere. Heck not just in the fossil record, they should be all around us: pigs partway developed into dolphins, kangaroos with quarter-pouches, giraffes with quarter length necks, etc. etc.

    But we don’t. Instead everything is more or less a terminal form.

    In his lifetime, Darwin’s response to this was, well, the living forms change too slowly to notice and we just haven’t found the dead ones in the fossil record yet. As the fossil record was just getting started at that time, this was almost plausible. But even Darwin himself was getting uneasy.

    Since his death, the fossil record has gotten much more extensive. But it has just confirmed the pre-existing reality. The record showed no quarter-trilobites and no eighth-trilobites. Instead it showed more and more fully formed trilobites with no intermediate form to or from something else. Species appear in the fossil record fully formed and then disappear fully formed, replaced by new fully formed species. Darwinians can draw pseudo-significant lines into evolutionary trees all they want, but it doesn’t change the reality that there are no forms on those lines, only at the beginnings and ends.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    this is the basic problem with Darwinian-style evolution. By his reasoning on incremental-changes, we should be finding incremental forms everywhere.
     
    That's exactly what the pioneering fossil scientists found:  incremental forms everywhere.  They found all kinds of ammonites in certain rocks, and the numbers and forms radiated the higher up in the column they went, changing incrementally foot by foot.

    And then the ammonites went extinct, probably because some other body-form evolved that out-competed them or ate all their offspring before they could reproduce.  And then it happened again with the new forms, and again.

    Heck not just in the fossil record, they should be all around us: pigs partway developed into dolphins, kangaroos with quarter-pouches, giraffes with quarter length necks, etc. etc.
     
    What's an okapi if not a giraffe with a quarter-length neck (and legs)?

    But we don’t. Instead everything is more or less a terminal form.
     
    You're assuming that the current forms are terminal forms.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I'm having trouble finding the article right now, but I read that the diets of some penguins have shifted from bigger, more energy-dense fish to smaller krill (presumably in response to a scarcity of fish).  This is bound to drive evolution both within and between penguin species as the smaller ones specializing in krill enjoy greater success than their larger cousins.

    The record showed no quarter-trilobites and no eighth-trilobites. Instead it showed more and more fully formed trilobites with no intermediate form to or from something else.
     
    The earliest trilobite fossils are found in the Burgess shale, IIUC.  That is one very small sampling of all the sea life at the time, and it may well be the ONLY remaining fossil bed from that era; in the past half-billion years it's quite possible that literally everything else was either buried, heated and metamorphosed or upthrust and eroded back to sediment grains.  Either way, those fossils are gone.  Absence of fossils is not evidence of absence of evolutionary precursors, not in something that old.

    Species appear in the fossil record fully formed and then disappear fully formed, replaced by new fully formed species
     
    We have much better fossil records of proto-mammals than we do trilobites, being only a fraction as old.  One of the first proto-primates, Altiatlasius, was something like a tarsier.  There was nothing resembling a chimpanzee, gorilla, baboon or human when Altiatlasius walked the earth.  We have lots of intermediate forms, though.
  220. we should be finding incremental forms everywhere

    Which is why I like it as a workable theory where we can observe it and the mechanics it describes. We can see genetic change over time in animals, even in the ones we breed, but it seems to stay within the same species boundary. I mean, we’ve been breeding dogs out of original wolf specimens for thousands of years, but it stubbornly still remains a dog; you can still breed it with a wolf and have fertile offspring.

    We’ve not (to my knowledge anyway) observed any “jump” across species – it’s very strange. It’s almost like the theoretical observation of certain subatomic particles; they are “here”, but they suddenly disappear and appear over “there” simply giving you a probability of their appearance at any given moment. Very strange stuff.

    Now I’m not saying we’ve dug up all the stuff there is – Lord knows the Earth is quite vast and we have only scratched the surface (I mean not too long ago, we discovered that the majority of the Earth’s biomass may be subterranean under conditions that nothing above ground could possibly survive in):
    “Organisms of Earth’s deep underground constitute between 15 billion and 23 billion tons of carbon and occupy an estimated volume almost twice that of the oceans combined…Many questions remain as to how life spreads under the surface, which energy sources are the most important to sustain these organisms, and whether this is where life began on planet Earth. ”
    https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/life-deep-underground-is-twice-the-volume-of-the-oceans–study-65201

    Think about the implications of the above; 1) life could have started underground, which may have us rework all our models, 2) life could have potentially multiple initiating points, again massive rework of our models.

    It’s all fascinating and I do like reading about this stuff. However, I don’t think it is much to ask to find a bat that has partially-formed wings or a type of camel that is in between one hump (dromedary) or two (bactrian). If atheists demand solid observable evidence in order to accept a rather large framework that claims to have a massive and overarching explanatory narrative, I don’t see why we cannot.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    I don’t think it is much to ask to find a bat that has partially-formed wings
     
    Flying squirrels and sugar gliders, to name two.  If true bats disappeared and their niche became available, you'd eventually see something evolve from those.
  221. @Almost Missouri

    "to you and me it seems like a heck of a lot of work, but to a Being that transcends time-space…there is no waiting; the past/present/future is one and the same. Likewise with the act of creation, simply willing something into being requires no effort."
     
    Indeed, the very concept of "effort", applied to omnipotent God, seems a kind of micro-blasphemy, perhaps against God, but certainly against logic.


    "That makes no sense to me."
     
    "It wouldn’t to me either if I started out with the same baseline assumptions."
     
    A lot of neo-atheist "debunking" of religion consists of applying mundane and finite concepts to the ineffable and infinite. Obviously these concepts won't fit, but the atheist mistakes this misfit for a refutation.

    To make an allegory that is less at the extreme, everyone can accept that the human mind, the human being, is vastly more sophisticated and powerful than the mind and being of a beetle. So much so, that a beetle may not even recognize a human in the rare event that it comes into the path of one. Indeed, as the vast majority of beetles probably have never encountered a human, perhaps beetles only hear of humans as legendary super-powerful creatures of beetle myth. And even if a beetle accepts the reality of humans and has the fortune or misfortune actually to encounter a human, could this rare beetle ever understand the the actions, the motives of the human? Probably not. In most cases, the best the beetle could do is to have a kind of spiritual humility that there is something way above itself, which it cannot really comprehend but which is no less real because of that.

    There is nothing strange or irrational in the preceding paragraph, right?

    Now, what if there is something as far above us as we are above the lowly beetle?

    ...

    The atheist may retort, "Well, there isn't!"

    But how is atheist retort any different from the beetle scientist loudly rejecting the reality of "these so called humans, these gods looming down from the sky, this Flying Spaghetti Monster"?

    the very concept of “effort”, applied to omnipotent God

    I remember the sense of wonder in my son’s eyes when we were recently on a boat and I pointed out the many bubbles in the froth and said; you know, God knew about all of these bubbles and when each of them would pop and all the bubbles you cannot see and all those bubbles that have possibly existed and will ever exist and their sizes and when each of them would pop “before” (does time even mean anything outside our framework?) He created the universe?

    When one says the Divine is All-Knowing, it doesn’t just mean a kind of simple multiplication of the information that we know. It is a fully comprehensive and encompassing knowledge. It is the knowledge of what exists and what does not exist and what will never exist. The world that we know which is a result of our timeline and the decisions humans have made is a mere speck. The Divine is aware of that as well as all the possible permutations of all the possible universes if any number of humans had made different decisions or butterflies would have flapped their wings a lesser or more times or if reptiles had remained ascendant on Earth. In this respect, there is no difference in what-is-and-has-been or what-was-not-and-could-never-be – all of it is known in its precise detail down to its most subtle form – in the Perfect Knowledge of the Divine. Thus, it’s not some effort at some experiment to arrive at some unknown conclusion.

    could this rare beetle ever understand the the actions, the motives of the human? Probably not.

    A Persian mystic (Rumi [ra] perhaps – I forget) talked about the ant crawling across an elegant rug in a royal palace created by a master weaver and yet all it could comprehend was how frustrating it was that the contour kept changing which made its walking more difficult.

    The atheist may retort, “Well, there isn’t!”

    Our friend here seems to be quite civil unlike many very-pushy atheists. The issue is that the two perspectives are simply unresolvable. Whether one chooses to be believe that there something that exists beyond the observable senses or that there isn’t; one has taken an axiomatic stance on an initial premise, everything else flows downhill from there.

    The issue is, science (though it’s wonderful in helping us get to the moon and back) simply is not equipped – nor actually interested – in resolving that question since its purview is in the observable phenomenal world as Porf. Hugh Gauche (of Cornell Univ.) wrote in his wonderful book summarizing the philosophy of science and its methodology:
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/scientific-method-in-brief/sciences-presuppositions/7BB9243763C4B206BAFF9E3175B484B0
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/scientific-method-in-brief/sciences-powers-and-limits/43B0E06002B2D81AAF354A271E4B1508

    “Several limitations of science are rather obvious and hence are not controversial. The most obvious limitation is that scientists will never observe, know, and explain everything about even science’s own domain, the physical world. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, Godel’s theorem and chaos theory set fundamental limits. (pg 96)…
    Methodological naturalism contrasts with metaphysical or ontological naturalism that asserts natural entities exist but nothing is supernatural, as claimed by atheists. Hence, methodological naturalism does not deny that the supernatural exists but rather stipulates that it is outside science’s purview. Unfortunately, methodological naturalism is sometimes confused with ontological naturalism. To insist that science obeys methodological naturalism and that science supports atheism is to get high marks for enthusiasm but low marks for logic. (pg 98)”
    Scientific Method in Brief (Cambridge Univ. Press)

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Talha

    The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, Godel’s theorem and chaos theory set fundamental limits.
     
    And I would add that the evolutionary theory itself imposes a set of limitations upon human cognition which is simply a tool for survival; according to the theory, arrived at after millions of years of development for a hominid of our size and for our environment for the sole purpose of maximizing genetic propagation and survival NOT coming to some fundamental ontological understanding of the universe. Just like the worm does not have the sense of sight which is irrelevant to its survival, we have no idea which senses we do not have (or even lost along the way due to them being unnecessary) and there is no way for us to understand a sense outside of the framework of our senses any more than you could describe "sight" or "color" to a worm if you could indeed communicate with it.
  222. @Talha

    the very concept of “effort”, applied to omnipotent God
     
    I remember the sense of wonder in my son's eyes when we were recently on a boat and I pointed out the many bubbles in the froth and said; you know, God knew about all of these bubbles and when each of them would pop and all the bubbles you cannot see and all those bubbles that have possibly existed and will ever exist and their sizes and when each of them would pop "before" (does time even mean anything outside our framework?) He created the universe?

    When one says the Divine is All-Knowing, it doesn't just mean a kind of simple multiplication of the information that we know. It is a fully comprehensive and encompassing knowledge. It is the knowledge of what exists and what does not exist and what will never exist. The world that we know which is a result of our timeline and the decisions humans have made is a mere speck. The Divine is aware of that as well as all the possible permutations of all the possible universes if any number of humans had made different decisions or butterflies would have flapped their wings a lesser or more times or if reptiles had remained ascendant on Earth. In this respect, there is no difference in what-is-and-has-been or what-was-not-and-could-never-be - all of it is known in its precise detail down to its most subtle form - in the Perfect Knowledge of the Divine. Thus, it's not some effort at some experiment to arrive at some unknown conclusion.

    could this rare beetle ever understand the the actions, the motives of the human? Probably not.
     
    A Persian mystic (Rumi [ra] perhaps - I forget) talked about the ant crawling across an elegant rug in a royal palace created by a master weaver and yet all it could comprehend was how frustrating it was that the contour kept changing which made its walking more difficult.

    The atheist may retort, “Well, there isn’t!”
     
    Our friend here seems to be quite civil unlike many very-pushy atheists. The issue is that the two perspectives are simply unresolvable. Whether one chooses to be believe that there something that exists beyond the observable senses or that there isn't; one has taken an axiomatic stance on an initial premise, everything else flows downhill from there.

    The issue is, science (though it's wonderful in helping us get to the moon and back) simply is not equipped - nor actually interested - in resolving that question since its purview is in the observable phenomenal world as Porf. Hugh Gauche (of Cornell Univ.) wrote in his wonderful book summarizing the philosophy of science and its methodology:
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/scientific-method-in-brief/sciences-presuppositions/7BB9243763C4B206BAFF9E3175B484B0
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/scientific-method-in-brief/sciences-powers-and-limits/43B0E06002B2D81AAF354A271E4B1508

    “Several limitations of science are rather obvious and hence are not controversial. The most obvious limitation is that scientists will never observe, know, and explain everything about even science’s own domain, the physical world. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, Godel’s theorem and chaos theory set fundamental limits. (pg 96)...
    Methodological naturalism contrasts with metaphysical or ontological naturalism that asserts natural entities exist but nothing is supernatural, as claimed by atheists. Hence, methodological naturalism does not deny that the supernatural exists but rather stipulates that it is outside science’s purview. Unfortunately, methodological naturalism is sometimes confused with ontological naturalism. To insist that science obeys methodological naturalism and that science supports atheism is to get high marks for enthusiasm but low marks for logic. (pg 98)”
    Scientific Method in Brief (Cambridge Univ. Press)

    Peace.

    The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, Godel’s theorem and chaos theory set fundamental limits.

    And I would add that the evolutionary theory itself imposes a set of limitations upon human cognition which is simply a tool for survival; according to the theory, arrived at after millions of years of development for a hominid of our size and for our environment for the sole purpose of maximizing genetic propagation and survival NOT coming to some fundamental ontological understanding of the universe. Just like the worm does not have the sense of sight which is irrelevant to its survival, we have no idea which senses we do not have (or even lost along the way due to them being unnecessary) and there is no way for us to understand a sense outside of the framework of our senses any more than you could describe “sight” or “color” to a worm if you could indeed communicate with it.

  223. @Almost Missouri
    The point of the faeries/birth defect, melons/malaria thing was that while the former of each pair might not in fact be the cause of the latter, that is not a disproof of the existence of the former. You can substitute "swamp air" for "melons" if you like that better.

    Yet here I am
     
    Who is this "I" you speak of?

    Further, if there’s this “soul” that drives everything and the brain is just meat, why does brain damage cause personality changes?
     
    Why does automobile damage cause changes in driving?

    The point of the faeries/birth defect, melons/malaria thing was that while the former of each pair might not in fact be the cause of the latter, that is not a disproof of the existence of the former.

    The observation of “changelings” (birth defects) was the reason that the existence of faeries was assumed.

    It turns out that birth defects have a completely natural cause.

    The existence of faeries is now completely without logical support; everything they were supposed to have done is caused by something else.  There are no phenomena which can be attributed to them; they affect nothing, and the initial leap which led to that postulate was shown to be erroneous.  WHY would you continue to claim that they exist?

    Who is this “I” you speak of?

    Among other things, someone making it difficult enough for you to hold up your position that you keep having to defend it.

    Why does automobile damage cause changes in driving?

    Different cars cause changes in driving even with the same driver.  I thought you were arguing against materialistic explanations, not for them.  Perhaps you should try to elucidate more, because you may not be writing exactly what you wanted to say.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Re birth defects: even today, all causes for birth defects are not known. And even where we can find, say, an associated genetic anomaly, e.g., trisomy, that is still not actually a cause, it just restates the question in other terms: instead of why did a birth defect happen, now we say why did trisomy happen?

    I'm not arguing for faeries, I'm just leery of building vast cosmologies on petty observations.


    Who is this “I” you speak of?
     
    Among other things, someone making it difficult enough for you to hold up your position that you keep having to defend it.
     
    Is that "you" speaking or just those particles bouncing in the void?



    Further, if there’s this “soul” that drives everything and the brain is just meat, why does brain damage cause personality changes?
     
    Why does automobile damage cause changes in driving?
     
    Different cars cause changes in driving even with the same driver. I thought you were arguing against materialistic explanations, not for them. Perhaps you should try to elucidate more, because you may not be writing exactly what you wanted to say.
     
    Yes, I was a little too brief there. (My gf's annoyed I'm not spending more time with her.) I'm not arguing that brain (car) is irrelevant, I'm suggesting that both soul/mind and brain matter, just as both driver and vehicle matter. A damaged car impairs driving, but that doesn't disprove the existence of the driver. A damaged brain impairs living, but that doesn't disprove the existence of what is doing the living ("soul").
  224. @Rosie

    In other words, alimony was originally like an insurance payout for a rare event.
     
    No. It was and is enforcement of a contract by specific performance.

    No. It was and is enforcement of a contract by specific performance.

    Cone to think of it, that gives me an idea. Would an actual insurance policy, with premiums, risk-sharing, and third-party payouts, work to protect homemakers?

    • Replies: @iffen
    Would an actual insurance policy

    No.

    Insurance companies evaluate risk factors and set the premiums based upon those factors. All marriages will not have the same risk profile.

    The best insurance policy for women these days is for them to be prepared to go it alone.

    , @Almost Missouri
    This is actually an interesting idea. In the real world, though, I think the legal SJWs would sabotage it before it got off the ground. The reason I say this is because that is what happened to pre-nuptial agreements, which were essentially an attempt to do the same thing by private parties: spell out the agreed risks and penalties beforehand. Courts routinely just set them aside, especially in more SJW jurisdictions (NY, Ca), though they can still be useful elsewhere.

    Well maybe there would be a way to do it if it could be presented in language that appeals in The Current Year...
  225. @Rosie

    No. It was and is enforcement of a contract by specific performance.
     
    Cone to think of it, that gives me an idea. Would an actual insurance policy, with premiums, risk-sharing, and third-party payouts, work to protect homemakers?

    Would an actual insurance policy

    No.

    Insurance companies evaluate risk factors and set the premiums based upon those factors. All marriages will not have the same risk profile.

    The best insurance policy for women these days is for them to be prepared to go it alone.

  226. @Rosie
    I figured out how to ignore Twinkie. Yay!

    <golf clap>  Here, have a cookie.

    What will you do for your next trick?  Take the training wheels off your bicycle, perhaps?

  227. @Talha

    Why go through all that rigmarole if it could be mammals week one?
     
    Who says the rigamarole is not part of the plan? I mean, to you and me it seems like a heck of a lot of work, but to a Being that transcends time-space...there is no waiting; the past/present/future is one and the same. Likewise with the act of creation, simply willing something into being requires no effort. Bringing mammals into position at week one or at week 32 million requires the same non-effort.

    why bother with all the creatures that turned out to be evolutionary dead ends?
     
    That is another judgement call based on assumptions of work/effort.

    That makes no sense to me.
     
    It wouldn't to me either if I started out with the same baseline assumptions.

    I don't personally have issues with the theory of evolution, per se. It's a nice working model (of course there are multiple competing claims to the correct evolutionary model) thus far to explain the mechanics of survival-of-the-fittest - given the evidence we dug up until now (of course a two million old homo sapiens jaw bone inconveniently found in some cave would have us do a heck of a lot of rework). I'd love to see more intermediary forms though; you know like kangaroos with a quarter-developed pouch or something - everything we dig up seems to be too fully developed. Also a very basic organism starting at like two or thee cells would be a great find.

    The real question is; does everything necessarily require a naturalistic explanation? I mean, sure that's one way of demanding an answer (in which case one simply does not believe in the concept of a miracle) and if one does, then there really is no way around it since that is the a priori assumption. But if one does accept the possibility of the occurrence of a miracle, then there is no reason why one cannot accept that evolution does indeed occur, but that a virgin girl in 1st century Palestine can give birth to a son without the necessary male intervention or that the first human beings can be inserted into the world being independent of the evolutionary chain of events, but composed of the same genetic building blocks as everything else on the planet thus giving the impression that they are indeed part of the same exact process.

    Peace.

    I’d love to see more intermediary forms though; you know like kangaroos with a quarter-developed pouch or something – everything we dig up seems to be too fully developed.

    And just how would you expect soft tissues like pouches to fossilize?

    That you didn’t think to ask that question shows a lack of imagination.  It’s not hard to think of ways that marsupials could have evolved that adaptation starting from fully-viable live birth, to the economy of attaching a less-developed offspring to a teat for an extended period, to protecting that offspring with a flap of skin, to a fully-developed pouch with birth occurring when the offspring has barely sufficient development to find its way from vagina into the pouch.  That appears to be a serious reproductive advantage, per the kangaroo:  a female can have a joey at the foot, one in the pouch and one in the uterus waiting on the pouch to be vacant.

    • Replies: @Talha
    I like your imagination; I’d prefer some solid evidence especially since all partially-pouch-developed marsupials aren’t still conveniently around. If a flap of skin was indeed advantageous at some point,why didn’t a branch remain with that advantage until today? Why did all of them happen to evolve yo end stage?

    Speculation is nice and all, but can’t they do DNA analysis now on bones and still get clues as to mid-stage marsupials? Again, I’m simply asking for evidence for maybe two or three of these examples of partially-developed specialized functional animals, not much to ask.

    Peace.
  228. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Well thanks for the compliment. I do try to be consistent if not coherent. lol

    "Our only difference (as far as I can make out) is that I don’t see early term abortion as particularly problematic, whereas you appear to be opposed completely."

    Personally, I am opposed to it completely, but not because of Jesus or anything like that, for two reasons. One, I don't like the idea of abortion being used for birth control because like I said before it, perhaps unintentionally, promotes irresponsibility. Second, a society that eliminates a million future human beings per year has no investment in its future, and while there are certainly other factors at play in the decline of our civilization, abortion on demand is a clear indicator.

    Now with that said, I perfectly realize that banning abortion at any stage will create a whole host of unintended consequences that defeat the purpose. So in the interest of both sides, a compromise should be reached, such as no abortions past the 1st trimester or once the fetus' heartbeat can be detected, or similar. But the earlier in term the better, I think. In order to placate staunch pragmatists such as Mr. Rational (that's not an insult, BTW,) a mother or couple should be allowed to request a later term abortion for a fetus determined to possess non treatable physical or mental deformities while in utero, via some kind of hearing, either in front of a medical board or courts or the equivalent.

    And yes, I am aware of abortifacients and how they differ from contraceptives.

    One, I don’t like the idea of abortion being used for birth control because like I said before it, perhaps unintentionally, promotes irresponsibility.

    No-fault divorce is much worse.

    Second, a society that eliminates a million future human beings per year has no investment in its future

    And a society which has several million deaths per year in infancy and childhood has what, exactly?

    In our modern age it’s easy to forget that we used to have 40% or so fatalities before adulthood.  This was NORMAL, if lamented.  Arguably we are practicing dysgenics by making certain that all but a tiny fraction live long enough to pass on whatever flaws would have kept them from breeding in the past.  Aborting a million or more only reflects lack of investment if the ones being aborted are those which would have lived rather than those which would have died.

    OBTW, shout-out noted.

  229. @Mr. Rational

    I’d love to see more intermediary forms though; you know like kangaroos with a quarter-developed pouch or something – everything we dig up seems to be too fully developed.
     
    And just how would you expect soft tissues like pouches to fossilize?

    That you didn't think to ask that question shows a lack of imagination.  It's not hard to think of ways that marsupials could have evolved that adaptation starting from fully-viable live birth, to the economy of attaching a less-developed offspring to a teat for an extended period, to protecting that offspring with a flap of skin, to a fully-developed pouch with birth occurring when the offspring has barely sufficient development to find its way from vagina into the pouch.  That appears to be a serious reproductive advantage, per the kangaroo:  a female can have a joey at the foot, one in the pouch and one in the uterus waiting on the pouch to be vacant.

    I like your imagination; I’d prefer some solid evidence especially since all partially-pouch-developed marsupials aren’t still conveniently around. If a flap of skin was indeed advantageous at some point,why didn’t a branch remain with that advantage until today? Why did all of them happen to evolve yo end stage?

    Speculation is nice and all, but can’t they do DNA analysis now on bones and still get clues as to mid-stage marsupials? Again, I’m simply asking for evidence for maybe two or three of these examples of partially-developed specialized functional animals, not much to ask.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    I’d prefer some solid evidence especially since all partially-pouch-developed marsupials aren’t still conveniently around. If a flap of skin was indeed advantageous at some point,why didn’t a branch remain with that advantage until today?
     
    Likely because, once started down that pathway, more was a better and better advantage until the ancestors of all surviving marsupials had a full pouch.  The pouch styles differ, though; kangaroo pouches are open on top, while opossum pouches open more or less centrally.

    Speculation is nice and all, but can’t they do DNA analysis now on bones and still get clues as to mid-stage marsupials?
     
    Sequenceable DNA doesn't survive that long.  What you can do is sample extant species and get info on when their last common ancestor lived and branched from the rest of the family tree, but even using that info to derive a likely genotype for that common ancestor would be a guess.  I haven't heard of anybody doing that, let alone turning that genetic guesstimate into a phenotype, but it seems like it's going to enter the realm of possibility fairly soon.
  230. @Rosie
    An interesting statistical phenomenon that AE might be interested in exploring:

    Excessive concern about a potential partner's sexual history may be dysgenic, especially for men. Promiscuity is correlated with higher intelligence, and the correlation is much more pronounced for women than for men.

    https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/figureintelligence-w640.png

    It has long been known that IQ is positively correlated with "openness to experience," so this is not terribly surprising.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-one-lifespan/201211/openness-experience-and-intellectual-ability

    Thanks. I’d not previously looked at that but it checks out with the GSS (yes, I see that’s the source used!).

  231. @Rosie
    An interesting statistical phenomenon that AE might be interested in exploring:

    Excessive concern about a potential partner's sexual history may be dysgenic, especially for men. Promiscuity is correlated with higher intelligence, and the correlation is much more pronounced for women than for men.

    https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/figureintelligence-w640.png

    It has long been known that IQ is positively correlated with "openness to experience," so this is not terribly surprising.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-one-lifespan/201211/openness-experience-and-intellectual-ability

    Double thanks. There’s an interesting twist worthy of a post here.

  232. @Talha

    Promiscuity is correlated with higher intelligence
     
    Chalk up another notch for extreme intelligence being dysgenic.

    I’m going to share this with Prof. Dutton and if he has taken this into account.

    Peace.

    He is well aware that more partners = less fertility for at least the last two generations.

  233. @Twinkie

    You are Catholic which is atypical of E. Asians.
     
    Catholic population is increasing in East Asia. And South Korea and Japan have had highly influential minority Catholic populations for decades. South Korea today is about 20% Protestant and 8% Catholic while Koreans in America are 60% Protestant and 10% Catholic. And they tend to have high intensity religiosity (very few in name only).

    I’m a convert, by the way, as is my wife. I grew up an evangelical and my wife was mainline.

    You are of different races, which is atypical... It is atypical to adhere to “another” race and culture.
     
    Koreans and Japanese have been quite assimilative in America with high intermarriage rates. Not unusual at all. They disappear into “whiteness” regularly.

    I didn’t know more than 1-in-4 South Koreans are Christians. Thanks.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I didn’t know more than 1-in-4 South Koreans are Christians.
     
    It’s the most Christian country in Asia after the Philippines and is the most Protestant country in Asia. And it sends out the second greatest number of Christian missionaries in the world (first is the U.S.).

    And the more than 1-in-4 figure doesn’t really capture how influential it is - the landscape of Seoul is dotted with churches and it figures heavily among the elites and the middle class. Of the ten presidents in South Korean history at least seven were raised as, or practiced, Christianity ( I think 4 or 5 were Catholics and the rest were Presbyterians).
  234. @iffen
    maintain our newfound comity

    I like, I love it, I want some more of it.

    You try so hard–and sometimes you can rise above it!

    • Replies: @iffen
    and sometimes you can rise above it!

    I'm a regular Little Engine That Could, but sometimes the slope is *****.

    Unfortunately, I fully expect Twinkie to have his Chief Gillespie moment at any time, but I don't worry about it; I'm all in for the duration. I kinda like the reformed iffen.

  235. @Almost Missouri

    "to you and me it seems like a heck of a lot of work, but to a Being that transcends time-space…there is no waiting; the past/present/future is one and the same. Likewise with the act of creation, simply willing something into being requires no effort."
     
    Indeed, the very concept of "effort", applied to omnipotent God, seems a kind of micro-blasphemy, perhaps against God, but certainly against logic.


    "That makes no sense to me."
     
    "It wouldn’t to me either if I started out with the same baseline assumptions."
     
    A lot of neo-atheist "debunking" of religion consists of applying mundane and finite concepts to the ineffable and infinite. Obviously these concepts won't fit, but the atheist mistakes this misfit for a refutation.

    To make an allegory that is less at the extreme, everyone can accept that the human mind, the human being, is vastly more sophisticated and powerful than the mind and being of a beetle. So much so, that a beetle may not even recognize a human in the rare event that it comes into the path of one. Indeed, as the vast majority of beetles probably have never encountered a human, perhaps beetles only hear of humans as legendary super-powerful creatures of beetle myth. And even if a beetle accepts the reality of humans and has the fortune or misfortune actually to encounter a human, could this rare beetle ever understand the the actions, the motives of the human? Probably not. In most cases, the best the beetle could do is to have a kind of spiritual humility that there is something way above itself, which it cannot really comprehend but which is no less real because of that.

    There is nothing strange or irrational in the preceding paragraph, right?

    Now, what if there is something as far above us as we are above the lowly beetle?

    ...

    The atheist may retort, "Well, there isn't!"

    But how is atheist retort any different from the beetle scientist loudly rejecting the reality of "these so called humans, these gods looming down from the sky, this Flying Spaghetti Monster"?

    Though no one asked, I’ll interject that my agnosticism is pithily summed up as follows–by definition, if the supernatural is a thing, it cannot be definitively detected by the natural.

  236. @Twinkie

    Oh no not intelligent design,
     
    Yup. I am an obedient Catholic and subscribe to theistic evolution. The evidence for evolution is pretty clear. I highly recommend Razib Khan’s piece on it: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/evolutionary-theory-crowning-achievement-western-civilization/

    The ID movement is dying out except among low IQ Christians, because much improved genetic science is adding more and more overwhelming evidence on the side of evolution everyday. That doesn’t mean evolution explains everything (certainly not the origin of life, for example), but it is and should be the dominant paradigm given the wealth of data that is now available to support it.

    That doesn’t mean evolution explains everything (certainly not the origin of life, for example)

    How could it?  Abiogenesis is inherently a different thing than reproduction of living organisms.  Of course, it helps creatonuts if they confuse that issue (along with many others) so they do it at every opportunity; the muddier the waters, the easier for them.

    I find it interesting to ponder the state of the early Earth.  The Sun brightens by about 1% every 100 million years (as its core turns hydrogen into denser helium it has to increase in temperature to keep from collapsing) so 3 billion years ago it was roughly 70% as bright as today.  At that level of insolation, Earth would have required a massive greenhouse effect to avoid being a near-total iceball.  I suspect that it went through long iceball phases during which GHGs built up due to vulcanism, interspersed with thaws in which weathering ran rampant and pulled CO2 out of the atmosphere to repeat the cycle.

    Both a reducing atmosphere irradiated with UV and hydrothermal vents are conducive to producing proto-organics, a la Miller-Urey.  When water freezes, all contaminants wind up concentrated at the boundaries between ice crystals.  Is that where life arose?  There’s no way to know for sure, but maybe if we go looking on e.g. Europa and Titan we can get some hints.

  237. @Audacious Epigone
    You try so hard--and sometimes you can rise above it!

    and sometimes you can rise above it!

    I’m a regular Little Engine That Could, but sometimes the slope is *****.

    Unfortunately, I fully expect Twinkie to have his Chief Gillespie moment at any time, but I don’t worry about it; I’m all in for the duration. I kinda like the reformed iffen.

  238. @Intelligent Dasein

    We have no firm evidence that there is a “soul” that exists
     
    Bodies are irrefutable evidence that souls exist. The soul is of itself and per se the form of the body. Without the soul the body would have no identity or substance, e.g. a real horse would be no different from a shape of a horse formed by clouds. It is the soul that makes living beings substantial realities. You will note that this definition has nothing to do with "consciousness" (a bullshit modern contrivance of a term) or immortality. It is a simple question of matter and form.

    People really shouldn’t try to prove that their user ID is ironic:

    Bodies are irrefutable evidence that souls exist. The soul is of itself and per se the form of the body. Without the soul the body would have no identity or substance, e.g. a real horse would be no different from a shape of a horse formed by clouds.

    Animals, trees, and rocks have form and substance.  They have identity, depending how you define it.  So they ALL have souls?  Are you an animist?

    When the body dissolves and loses “identity” and “substance” as it does after death, does the “soul” evaporate as well?  Because you mis-quoted me, omitting “separately from the brain”, you failed to address that.  Not very intelligent.  Or honest.

  239. @Almost Missouri

    "I’d love to see more intermediary forms though; you know like kangaroos with a quarter-developed pouch or something – everything we dig up seems to be too fully developed."
     
    Yes, this is the basic problem with Darwinian-style evolution. By his reasoning on incremental-changes, we should be finding incremental forms everywhere. Heck not just in the fossil record, they should be all around us: pigs partway developed into dolphins, kangaroos with quarter-pouches, giraffes with quarter length necks, etc. etc.

    But we don't. Instead everything is more or less a terminal form.

    In his lifetime, Darwin's response to this was, well, the living forms change too slowly to notice and we just haven't found the dead ones in the fossil record yet. As the fossil record was just getting started at that time, this was almost plausible. But even Darwin himself was getting uneasy.

    Since his death, the fossil record has gotten much more extensive. But it has just confirmed the pre-existing reality. The record showed no quarter-trilobites and no eighth-trilobites. Instead it showed more and more fully formed trilobites with no intermediate form to or from something else. Species appear in the fossil record fully formed and then disappear fully formed, replaced by new fully formed species. Darwinians can draw pseudo-significant lines into evolutionary trees all they want, but it doesn't change the reality that there are no forms on those lines, only at the beginnings and ends.

    this is the basic problem with Darwinian-style evolution. By his reasoning on incremental-changes, we should be finding incremental forms everywhere.

    That’s exactly what the pioneering fossil scientists found:  incremental forms everywhere.  They found all kinds of ammonites in certain rocks, and the numbers and forms radiated the higher up in the column they went, changing incrementally foot by foot.

    And then the ammonites went extinct, probably because some other body-form evolved that out-competed them or ate all their offspring before they could reproduce.  And then it happened again with the new forms, and again.

    Heck not just in the fossil record, they should be all around us: pigs partway developed into dolphins, kangaroos with quarter-pouches, giraffes with quarter length necks, etc. etc.

    What’s an okapi if not a giraffe with a quarter-length neck (and legs)?

    But we don’t. Instead everything is more or less a terminal form.

    You’re assuming that the current forms are terminal forms.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I’m having trouble finding the article right now, but I read that the diets of some penguins have shifted from bigger, more energy-dense fish to smaller krill (presumably in response to a scarcity of fish).  This is bound to drive evolution both within and between penguin species as the smaller ones specializing in krill enjoy greater success than their larger cousins.

    The record showed no quarter-trilobites and no eighth-trilobites. Instead it showed more and more fully formed trilobites with no intermediate form to or from something else.

    The earliest trilobite fossils are found in the Burgess shale, IIUC.  That is one very small sampling of all the sea life at the time, and it may well be the ONLY remaining fossil bed from that era; in the past half-billion years it’s quite possible that literally everything else was either buried, heated and metamorphosed or upthrust and eroded back to sediment grains.  Either way, those fossils are gone.  Absence of fossils is not evidence of absence of evolutionary precursors, not in something that old.

    Species appear in the fossil record fully formed and then disappear fully formed, replaced by new fully formed species

    We have much better fossil records of proto-mammals than we do trilobites, being only a fraction as old.  One of the first proto-primates, Altiatlasius, was something like a tarsier.  There was nothing resembling a chimpanzee, gorilla, baboon or human when Altiatlasius walked the earth.  We have lots of intermediate forms, though.

  240. @Talha

    we should be finding incremental forms everywhere
     
    Which is why I like it as a workable theory where we can observe it and the mechanics it describes. We can see genetic change over time in animals, even in the ones we breed, but it seems to stay within the same species boundary. I mean, we've been breeding dogs out of original wolf specimens for thousands of years, but it stubbornly still remains a dog; you can still breed it with a wolf and have fertile offspring.

    We've not (to my knowledge anyway) observed any "jump" across species - it's very strange. It's almost like the theoretical observation of certain subatomic particles; they are "here", but they suddenly disappear and appear over "there" simply giving you a probability of their appearance at any given moment. Very strange stuff.

    Now I'm not saying we've dug up all the stuff there is - Lord knows the Earth is quite vast and we have only scratched the surface (I mean not too long ago, we discovered that the majority of the Earth's biomass may be subterranean under conditions that nothing above ground could possibly survive in):
    "Organisms of Earth’s deep underground constitute between 15 billion and 23 billion tons of carbon and occupy an estimated volume almost twice that of the oceans combined...Many questions remain as to how life spreads under the surface, which energy sources are the most important to sustain these organisms, and whether this is where life began on planet Earth. "
    https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/life-deep-underground-is-twice-the-volume-of-the-oceans--study-65201

    Think about the implications of the above; 1) life could have started underground, which may have us rework all our models, 2) life could have potentially multiple initiating points, again massive rework of our models.

    It's all fascinating and I do like reading about this stuff. However, I don't think it is much to ask to find a bat that has partially-formed wings or a type of camel that is in between one hump (dromedary) or two (bactrian). If atheists demand solid observable evidence in order to accept a rather large framework that claims to have a massive and overarching explanatory narrative, I don't see why we cannot.

    Peace.

    I don’t think it is much to ask to find a bat that has partially-formed wings

    Flying squirrels and sugar gliders, to name two.  If true bats disappeared and their niche became available, you’d eventually see something evolve from those.

    • Replies: @Talha
    That’s not what I’m looking for. I’m not looking for analogous appendages or organs on some other unrelated species. The flying squirrel looks like what the bat’s ancestor may have looked like. The fact that the flying squirrel is around proves that it was indeed a viable adaptation perfectly suited for survival without further tweaking. I want to see THAT creature. Unless your contention is that the flying squirrel IS that creature. If so, I’d like to see proof at a genetic analysis level that concludes it came from the same ancestral branch and not simply related via some parallel branch of mammals.

    Peace.
  241. @Talha
    I like your imagination; I’d prefer some solid evidence especially since all partially-pouch-developed marsupials aren’t still conveniently around. If a flap of skin was indeed advantageous at some point,why didn’t a branch remain with that advantage until today? Why did all of them happen to evolve yo end stage?

    Speculation is nice and all, but can’t they do DNA analysis now on bones and still get clues as to mid-stage marsupials? Again, I’m simply asking for evidence for maybe two or three of these examples of partially-developed specialized functional animals, not much to ask.

    Peace.

    I’d prefer some solid evidence especially since all partially-pouch-developed marsupials aren’t still conveniently around. If a flap of skin was indeed advantageous at some point,why didn’t a branch remain with that advantage until today?

    Likely because, once started down that pathway, more was a better and better advantage until the ancestors of all surviving marsupials had a full pouch.  The pouch styles differ, though; kangaroo pouches are open on top, while opossum pouches open more or less centrally.

    Speculation is nice and all, but can’t they do DNA analysis now on bones and still get clues as to mid-stage marsupials?

    Sequenceable DNA doesn’t survive that long.  What you can do is sample extant species and get info on when their last common ancestor lived and branched from the rest of the family tree, but even using that info to derive a likely genotype for that common ancestor would be a guess.  I haven’t heard of anybody doing that, let alone turning that genetic guesstimate into a phenotype, but it seems like it’s going to enter the realm of possibility fairly soon.

    • Replies: @Talha

    Likely because, once started down that pathway, more was a better and better advantage until the ancestors of all surviving marsupials had a full pouch.
     
    I get this and it makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is how it seems to occur again and again for all species. We get no confirmed intermediate forms? Why? Look, I certainly don’t have an explanation but I’ve not heard one that satisfies me from anybody else either.

    Peace.
  242. @Mr. Rational

    I don’t think it is much to ask to find a bat that has partially-formed wings
     
    Flying squirrels and sugar gliders, to name two.  If true bats disappeared and their niche became available, you'd eventually see something evolve from those.

    That’s not what I’m looking for. I’m not looking for analogous appendages or organs on some other unrelated species. The flying squirrel looks like what the bat’s ancestor may have looked like. The fact that the flying squirrel is around proves that it was indeed a viable adaptation perfectly suited for survival without further tweaking. I want to see THAT creature. Unless your contention is that the flying squirrel IS that creature. If so, I’d like to see proof at a genetic analysis level that concludes it came from the same ancestral branch and not simply related via some parallel branch of mammals.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    I’m not looking for analogous appendages or organs on some other unrelated species. The flying squirrel looks like what the bat’s ancestor may have looked like.
     
    Yes, exactly.  Gliding rodents (and marsupials) have arisen by a similar selection process and exist in the present day.  If bats were to go extinct, these extant gliders would likely evolve into full-flying animals as they would have no competition for that niche.

    The fact that the flying squirrel is around proves that it was indeed a viable adaptation perfectly suited for survival without further tweaking. I want to see THAT creature.
     
    The gliding-only ancestor of the bat is extinct; the proto-bats that could glide/fly better out-competed the ones that weren't so good, so the not-so-good ones aren't around any more.  What you want may be something you can reconstruct from living bat genomes, but you're not going to find it alive anywhere today.  If you look in the right place you may find fossils, but I believe you're talking about the Eocene and maybe earlier.
  243. @Audacious Epigone
    I didn't know more than 1-in-4 South Koreans are Christians. Thanks.

    I didn’t know more than 1-in-4 South Koreans are Christians.

    It’s the most Christian country in Asia after the Philippines and is the most Protestant country in Asia. And it sends out the second greatest number of Christian missionaries in the world (first is the U.S.).

    And the more than 1-in-4 figure doesn’t really capture how influential it is – the landscape of Seoul is dotted with churches and it figures heavily among the elites and the middle class. Of the ten presidents in South Korean history at least seven were raised as, or practiced, Christianity ( I think 4 or 5 were Catholics and the rest were Presbyterians).

  244. @Mr. Rational

    I’d prefer some solid evidence especially since all partially-pouch-developed marsupials aren’t still conveniently around. If a flap of skin was indeed advantageous at some point,why didn’t a branch remain with that advantage until today?
     
    Likely because, once started down that pathway, more was a better and better advantage until the ancestors of all surviving marsupials had a full pouch.  The pouch styles differ, though; kangaroo pouches are open on top, while opossum pouches open more or less centrally.

    Speculation is nice and all, but can’t they do DNA analysis now on bones and still get clues as to mid-stage marsupials?
     
    Sequenceable DNA doesn't survive that long.  What you can do is sample extant species and get info on when their last common ancestor lived and branched from the rest of the family tree, but even using that info to derive a likely genotype for that common ancestor would be a guess.  I haven't heard of anybody doing that, let alone turning that genetic guesstimate into a phenotype, but it seems like it's going to enter the realm of possibility fairly soon.

    Likely because, once started down that pathway, more was a better and better advantage until the ancestors of all surviving marsupials had a full pouch.

    I get this and it makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is how it seems to occur again and again for all species. We get no confirmed intermediate forms? Why? Look, I certainly don’t have an explanation but I’ve not heard one that satisfies me from anybody else either.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    What doesn’t make sense is how it seems to occur again and again for all species.
     
    Because there was probably one common ancestor for all modern marsupials, that's why.  We're not living at the right time to see the soft-tissue differences which would mark the variations in development of pouch-raising, and those differences left no fossil traces.

    We get no confirmed intermediate forms? Why?
     
    Before anyone started breeding dogs to make e.g. the Russian wolfhound, were those dogs an "intermediate form" or were they fully developed in their own right?

    Something is only an "intermediate form" in light of what its descendants give rise to.  OF COURSE nothing living in the present day is an "intermediate form"; you can only define that later.  Much later, in most cases.
  245. @Talha
    That’s not what I’m looking for. I’m not looking for analogous appendages or organs on some other unrelated species. The flying squirrel looks like what the bat’s ancestor may have looked like. The fact that the flying squirrel is around proves that it was indeed a viable adaptation perfectly suited for survival without further tweaking. I want to see THAT creature. Unless your contention is that the flying squirrel IS that creature. If so, I’d like to see proof at a genetic analysis level that concludes it came from the same ancestral branch and not simply related via some parallel branch of mammals.

    Peace.

    I’m not looking for analogous appendages or organs on some other unrelated species. The flying squirrel looks like what the bat’s ancestor may have looked like.

    Yes, exactly.  Gliding rodents (and marsupials) have arisen by a similar selection process and exist in the present day.  If bats were to go extinct, these extant gliders would likely evolve into full-flying animals as they would have no competition for that niche.

    The fact that the flying squirrel is around proves that it was indeed a viable adaptation perfectly suited for survival without further tweaking. I want to see THAT creature.

    The gliding-only ancestor of the bat is extinct; the proto-bats that could glide/fly better out-competed the ones that weren’t so good, so the not-so-good ones aren’t around any more.  What you want may be something you can reconstruct from living bat genomes, but you’re not going to find it alive anywhere today.  If you look in the right place you may find fossils, but I believe you’re talking about the Eocene and maybe earlier.

    • Replies: @Talha

    If you look in the right place you may find fossils, but I believe you’re talking about the Eocene and maybe earlier.
     
    And that’s the problem, I’m not seeing these fossils. Where are they? Where is the gliding proto-bat ancestor? The half-bat which is the true genetic ancestor of today’s bats.

    Look, I believe in the supernatural so I have no problem with the explanation that an angel named Gabriel (as) came in the form of humans and spoke to men - no problem whatsoever since “God did it”.

    The problem here is that we are avoiding filling the gaps with God, so we need solid evidence. I’m not satisfied with more than 80% confidence in theory. If you look up the thread, you’ll see that I do keep up with new developments (now I’m no expert) so I know the theory is in flux and evidence could come to knock it off as the first runner (all theories are subject to falsification).

    Now if the evidence is good enough for others to adopt it fully, OK, I’m not going to argue - that’s a subjective comfort level everyone decides for themselves.

    Peace.
  246. @Talha

    Likely because, once started down that pathway, more was a better and better advantage until the ancestors of all surviving marsupials had a full pouch.
     
    I get this and it makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is how it seems to occur again and again for all species. We get no confirmed intermediate forms? Why? Look, I certainly don’t have an explanation but I’ve not heard one that satisfies me from anybody else either.

    Peace.

    What doesn’t make sense is how it seems to occur again and again for all species.

    Because there was probably one common ancestor for all modern marsupials, that’s why.  We’re not living at the right time to see the soft-tissue differences which would mark the variations in development of pouch-raising, and those differences left no fossil traces.

    We get no confirmed intermediate forms? Why?

    Before anyone started breeding dogs to make e.g. the Russian wolfhound, were those dogs an “intermediate form” or were they fully developed in their own right?

    Something is only an “intermediate form” in light of what its descendants give rise to.  OF COURSE nothing living in the present day is an “intermediate form”; you can only define that later.  Much later, in most cases.

    • Replies: @Talha

    Because there was probably one common ancestor for all modern marsupials, that’s why.
     
    How do we know this? Most are in Australia, completely isolated from North and South America where the rest of them are. Do we have evidence that a common proto-marsupial ancestor between all of those existed before the continents drifted apart? Again, I’d like to see evidence.

    were those dogs an “intermediate form”
     
    Within the same species; I’m not talking breeds, I’m talking distinct species along the evolutionary path.

    OF COURSE nothing living in the present day is an “intermediate form”
     
    I’m saying a direct descendant of the intermediary form retaining its distinctive physiology which made it evolutionarily viable in the first place. All of these seem to have been out-competed by the final form. How is this possible consistently in all cases everywhere?

    And furthermore I’d even settle for confirmed intermediary fossils confirmed by genetic testing. I’m willing to wait.

    When it comes to science I’m open to evidence. Decades ago, scientists thought the universe was according to the steady state model, then we discovered background radiation and that changed everything. We have the Big Bang model, which I like - seems to make sense. I have about 95% confidence in that one. But I’m completely open to the possibility that we will discover something else that will completely change our view and force us to dump the Big Bang in the trash bin with Phlogiston.

    Peace.

  247. @Mr. Rational

    I’m not looking for analogous appendages or organs on some other unrelated species. The flying squirrel looks like what the bat’s ancestor may have looked like.
     
    Yes, exactly.  Gliding rodents (and marsupials) have arisen by a similar selection process and exist in the present day.  If bats were to go extinct, these extant gliders would likely evolve into full-flying animals as they would have no competition for that niche.

    The fact that the flying squirrel is around proves that it was indeed a viable adaptation perfectly suited for survival without further tweaking. I want to see THAT creature.
     
    The gliding-only ancestor of the bat is extinct; the proto-bats that could glide/fly better out-competed the ones that weren't so good, so the not-so-good ones aren't around any more.  What you want may be something you can reconstruct from living bat genomes, but you're not going to find it alive anywhere today.  If you look in the right place you may find fossils, but I believe you're talking about the Eocene and maybe earlier.

    If you look in the right place you may find fossils, but I believe you’re talking about the Eocene and maybe earlier.

    And that’s the problem, I’m not seeing these fossils. Where are they? Where is the gliding proto-bat ancestor? The half-bat which is the true genetic ancestor of today’s bats.

    Look, I believe in the supernatural so I have no problem with the explanation that an angel named Gabriel (as) came in the form of humans and spoke to men – no problem whatsoever since “God did it”.

    The problem here is that we are avoiding filling the gaps with God, so we need solid evidence. I’m not satisfied with more than 80% confidence in theory. If you look up the thread, you’ll see that I do keep up with new developments (now I’m no expert) so I know the theory is in flux and evidence could come to knock it off as the first runner (all theories are subject to falsification).

    Now if the evidence is good enough for others to adopt it fully, OK, I’m not going to argue – that’s a subjective comfort level everyone decides for themselves.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    The evolution of bats isn't my thing, and I really don't want to do any more of your homework.  Try looking these things up for yourself instead of treating me like your own personal encyclopedia cum tutor.  Believe me, there's a lot more out there than you think, especially when you start digging through Google Scholar.
  248. @Rosie
    It occurs to me that the usual pattern of men having more premarital sex than women is probably often reversed among very high-IQ couples. The most intelligent men may have to be more flexible and forgiving than average men, if they want to marry an intellectual peer.

    yeah it is no secret at all (and I have observed this for years now) that most high-IQ men are simpy cucks without balls. It is sort of like the old stereotype of the dumb jock and the cowardly smart nerd was actually true all along. I’ve known two or three highly intelligent guys who had ‘open relationships’ that consisted of their partners having a sex buffet while they got blue balls. Contrary to popular perception, I don’t think that high-IQ or intellectualism makes a dude desirable for women

  249. @Talha

    If you look in the right place you may find fossils, but I believe you’re talking about the Eocene and maybe earlier.
     
    And that’s the problem, I’m not seeing these fossils. Where are they? Where is the gliding proto-bat ancestor? The half-bat which is the true genetic ancestor of today’s bats.

    Look, I believe in the supernatural so I have no problem with the explanation that an angel named Gabriel (as) came in the form of humans and spoke to men - no problem whatsoever since “God did it”.

    The problem here is that we are avoiding filling the gaps with God, so we need solid evidence. I’m not satisfied with more than 80% confidence in theory. If you look up the thread, you’ll see that I do keep up with new developments (now I’m no expert) so I know the theory is in flux and evidence could come to knock it off as the first runner (all theories are subject to falsification).

    Now if the evidence is good enough for others to adopt it fully, OK, I’m not going to argue - that’s a subjective comfort level everyone decides for themselves.

    Peace.

    The evolution of bats isn’t my thing, and I really don’t want to do any more of your homework.  Try looking these things up for yourself instead of treating me like your own personal encyclopedia cum tutor.  Believe me, there’s a lot more out there than you think, especially when you start digging through Google Scholar.

    • Replies: @Talha
    What makes you think I haven’t? I’m simply not as convinced as you are by the theory - and that’s OK - we’re all adults here. We each have our personal preferences for what gives us a comfort level for conviction in something.

    Every time I read something it’s couched in similar terms you have been using; probably, likely, possible that, many theorize, etc.

    And that’s great; that’s why I think it is a viable theory with explanatory powers and better than other models.

    Peace.

  250. @Mr. Rational

    What doesn’t make sense is how it seems to occur again and again for all species.
     
    Because there was probably one common ancestor for all modern marsupials, that's why.  We're not living at the right time to see the soft-tissue differences which would mark the variations in development of pouch-raising, and those differences left no fossil traces.

    We get no confirmed intermediate forms? Why?
     
    Before anyone started breeding dogs to make e.g. the Russian wolfhound, were those dogs an "intermediate form" or were they fully developed in their own right?

    Something is only an "intermediate form" in light of what its descendants give rise to.  OF COURSE nothing living in the present day is an "intermediate form"; you can only define that later.  Much later, in most cases.

    Because there was probably one common ancestor for all modern marsupials, that’s why.

    How do we know this? Most are in Australia, completely isolated from North and South America where the rest of them are. Do we have evidence that a common proto-marsupial ancestor between all of those existed before the continents drifted apart? Again, I’d like to see evidence.

    were those dogs an “intermediate form”

    Within the same species; I’m not talking breeds, I’m talking distinct species along the evolutionary path.

    OF COURSE nothing living in the present day is an “intermediate form”

    I’m saying a direct descendant of the intermediary form retaining its distinctive physiology which made it evolutionarily viable in the first place. All of these seem to have been out-competed by the final form. How is this possible consistently in all cases everywhere?

    And furthermore I’d even settle for confirmed intermediary fossils confirmed by genetic testing. I’m willing to wait.

    When it comes to science I’m open to evidence. Decades ago, scientists thought the universe was according to the steady state model, then we discovered background radiation and that changed everything. We have the Big Bang model, which I like – seems to make sense. I have about 95% confidence in that one. But I’m completely open to the possibility that we will discover something else that will completely change our view and force us to dump the Big Bang in the trash bin with Phlogiston.

    Peace.

  251. @Mr. Rational
    The evolution of bats isn't my thing, and I really don't want to do any more of your homework.  Try looking these things up for yourself instead of treating me like your own personal encyclopedia cum tutor.  Believe me, there's a lot more out there than you think, especially when you start digging through Google Scholar.

    What makes you think I haven’t? I’m simply not as convinced as you are by the theory – and that’s OK – we’re all adults here. We each have our personal preferences for what gives us a comfort level for conviction in something.

    Every time I read something it’s couched in similar terms you have been using; probably, likely, possible that, many theorize, etc.

    And that’s great; that’s why I think it is a viable theory with explanatory powers and better than other models.

    Peace.