Image Galleries > "Pictures of you with an RRS sign" - Why make it sexy?

Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Image Galleries > "Pictures of you with an RRS sign" - Why make it sexy?

I'm unclear on the message RRS is trying to project with this.

This world is suggestive and idolizes women, from an evolutionary standpoint, RRS should be working hard to remove the stigma around this sort of thing. One thing Christians have going for them (and i say this cautiously) is that they don't generally approve of women walking around projecting a strong sexual image. It's really too bad that the women of this (specifically North American) are seen so strongly as sex objects instead of intelligent beings.

Nakedness is natural, the body is natural. It's a real shame that people in this society feel a need to make a statement by linking it to sex and more specifically, the female body. If you want to have a great body, for great sexual reasons, keep it for the great sexual reasons, it doesn't make sense to use this as a way to get viewers or whatever your agenda is.

If you keep this up there... put out a challenge to the men... make it equal, make it sexual (please not pornographic). It's a fallacy to think that only hot women are sexually stimulating... Guys need to recognize that women love hot men too... so hot men out there who want to make a statement... hang it creatively from your dangly. It's not rational however to be fighting the themes of morality while taking steps backwards creating the sexual prison that women find themselves involunatarily and unhappily in and locking men into not being able to release the conditioning that sexual fantasy has to be like this. Would be nice to have a day where people are seen as equals sexually, physically, intellectually. These actions are not condusive to a world where equality exists, and people have natural freedoms.

And to the women... show how brilliant you are intellectually... no one really needs to read it plastered across your chest, they wouldn't be reading that message anyhow. Rise above the stigma that is out there, women are just as sexy and evocative being brilliant, intelligent and well educated.

I'm not about oppressing sexuality, I love it as much as the next, I'm against the whole idea that society is locked in a mindset that women have to make statements sexually, it degrades a progressive image that we can be free of and respected as women who are intelligent and worthy of equality and respect. Humans as a species don't have a great future to look forward to untill all can be respected for what they are and this message simply destroys that.

Drea

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Drea

Sapient wrote:
Drea wrote:

Well, it's sad to see this degrateding so rapidly.

This is the senario... two women equally qualified goes to an interview. Worse, one woman overly qualified or well qualified and a woman undermatched apply for a position. The job goes to the woman who looks best and purposely for the interview shows extra leg or cleveage, in this case, the one who was undermatched. Is this fair? no way. Does this happen? yes.

In my world of equality this situation would never happen because both women would be on the floor at home remaining perfectly still in a burlap sack as they revel in their "equality utopia." (see video) Eye-wink

 

    In my world I can discriminate against women based on their looks because I am a male boss and have 13 employees - I can lay off the ugly and hire the beautiful!  Heck, fire the guys too...I want hot women in my office!  Yay me!  Smiling

....err..wait...I suck if I do that... Sad

Point being - though you make the point that women shouldn't have to cover up when going for a job interview, you guys missed the point that the entire reason that she has an advantage is becasue of the sexist society that we live in.  It's not the women that are at fault!  It's the men and the religions (and others it seems) that want to keep the status quo.

Read my other thread a couple before this regarding how the world would be if it was men who had to dress up.  Also, don't discount the human factor, people get angry...and finally don't discount that looks fade, and companies that hire based on looks instead of qualifications are self-destructing.  There are lots of problems with this at a societal level that you aren't accounting for.

Just some thoughts...fun video though - I just think it addressed the wrong point. 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Well heres my actual

Well heres my actual thoughts on the topic. I guess i will finally offer that lol.

 

When I think about the billions of people in the world I realize its me against all of them. Sure it would suck to have someone hired over me because they are more attractive but well if it happens then I would just go on to the next interview. We shouldnt concern ourselves with whats fair and what isnt. Almost nothing in the world is fair. If I sat here and complained about everything that isnt fair then I would not be very happy with my life.

 

So yes things can be unfair and other people will very likely play dirty when there is competition. You just do your best and hold yourself up to your own morals and fuck what everyone else thinks.

 

Sealed


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
I just realized there is a

I just realized there is a major problem in what I just said. Hope no one catches that. Tongue out


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
I think Abandon that you

I think Abandon that you touched it a bit... not liking people playing dirty and the conditioning that makes us all just sit back and not like it.

Sapient, if you took that quote a bit further, you'd notice that i talked about leverage of someone equally quallified on all counts and to get ahead showed extra leg or chest or something like that. It's dirty play. I have humanist views, and i'm not sorry i have them. I don't want people in bags, Muslems do a fine job already. That's not my bag tho baby. I'm not about oppression, and i'm not about hiding ones attributes, i wear makeup because i like to be beautiful, i take pride in my hair, my clothes etc because i like how i look. I would not leverage myself with someone equally qualified by exploiting my looks and sexuality. That's what i'm getting at. That's what you misinterpreted. That's what i've pretty much said since the beginning. BUT at the beginning, it was started about wondering why there is a mix between atheism and sexual fantasy on an atheism site. I have later come to realize that it's a site for atheists but not about atheism for everyone. 

I came to this site because i thought this was a site for christians to go for education. You didn't reach me, I was already reached. Christians in most cases aren't ready to hear/see many of the ideas expressed on this site and i was mistaken to think that the site objectives were to help them. When i alluded to mixed messages, it was because these images would turn people away who want that education but aren't ready to self-indentify with these ideas. So... again, it's your site. You misinterpreted my messaege, and i misinterpreted the concept for this site.

I do think, however, that to have a site that is about atheism for people it might be nice to show harmony between two sides with glaringly opposite ideas. Atheism is made up of MANY diverse sets of people all happy that they can express themselves how they want without fear of wrath or other diety expressions of punishment. It would be very cool to have a site where humanist views are represented as well as general atheist concepts, as well as other atheist concepts and that when these are brought up, that videos don't have to be made to mock this concept, and not even with the curtesy of getting the message right.

It's a funny video, but with the wrong message. I have no problem you addressing it to me, but it's very unfortunate that all sorts of people will think really negatively of me when this wasn't the message i was making at all.

 

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote: Hey all, I am

Drea wrote:

Hey all, I am honoured that you took time out of your day to address something that I didn't say.

Drea, let's be real now, we're using your exact words...

 

"I have this view because i don't want to live in a world that segrigates women who dont' have that advantage. I dont' want to live in a world that thinks it's ok for hot women to sexually maniulate and exploit weak men for their own agenda. I just plain old don't agree. That's not a Christian standpoint, thats a vision of community, it's a vision of equality, it's a vision of respect for the common and uncommon folks of our species."

"Why would you say i am supporting Christian ideologies when in fact, all i am trying to give is a fair vision. A vision of a world where there isnt' that bias. A world where there is an equal playing field. I want to hope that future generations woudl benefit from an idea that you don't use sexuality to explot men suseptible to it."

 

"I respectfully withdraw while keeping my own conclusions. I'll still be the "repressed" woman but... i can look at my less fortunate friends who have to fight in this world without Kellys "advantages" knowing that i don't take advantage of mine. And i with draw knowing i have personal pride in that."

 

 

Quote:
I think you entirely missed my message.

Or maybe you missed mine?

You want a world where there is an equal playing field? Figure out a way to undo human biology or start advocating my burlap-sack-lay-on-the-floor method.

You want to feel as if you aren't actually using your evolutionary advantages so that you can be fair to your less fortunate friends? Then don't use a picture of the real you on websites, don't use your intellect anywhere, and give up all your money to people less fortunate than you.


 

Quote:
I think by publically making this video aimed and addressed at me while clearly not targeting the essense of my message is unfortunate.

It's satire. Does it represent your views extrapolated to an absurd degree? Yes. Would you advocate burlap sack method? No. Do you realize yet that burlap sack method is required to achieve your desired goals? (only you can answer that)

 

Quote:
I said that women who use their assets to their advantage over other people who have just as much right to that position isn't inline with what i think of as proper conduct.

Do we all have equal right to a job as a high powered lawyer? Do we all have as much right to a job as an air force pilot? Do we all have as much right to a job as a supermodel?

We get the rights to the above by demonstrating our evolutionary advantages. Some of us are smarter, they should use that to their advantage. Some of us are more attractive, those people should use that to their advantage. Some of us have attained more wealth potentially through luck but likely through having a host of other positive traits, people with wealth should use what they have as an advantage. People who don't use what they have as an evolutionary advantage risk cutting themselves off from the genepool.

My point: You are lying to yourself if you tell yourself that you don't use your looks and your intellect to your advantage.

 

Quote:
I don't want people walking around with sacks over them, how ludicris, but i don't someone walking into an interview showing off their legs and chest to gain an advantage over an equally qualified other woman or man. It's not fair and not right to suppot "in my opinion"

Life isn't fair.

You'll have to cover up more than legs and chest if you want to take away a womens advantage in the workplace. You don't get that? You don't see that your "unsexy" picture is actually sexy and that you're using it to your advantage in this thread. It's likely your attractive picture that made Kelly and I subconsciously more interested in responding to your thread. Subconsciously I have probably taken it easier on you because you are an attractive face. Personally I am much more partial to someones face than her legs or chest, and there are plenty others like me (including prospective bosses).

So... if you truly want to eliminate that advantage, I suggest a Burlap Sack Squad. You've got a lot of work to do... or you could just accept that you're attractive and evolution dictates you use it to your advantage, and that men desire it. The moment men stop desiring women sexually is the moment we're all fucked... or in this case there will be no fucking.

 

 

Quote:
It's not fair and not right to suppot "in my opinion"

Like I said, I think it's unfair that we have to waste 1/3 of our life sleeping. It's not right in my opinion.

You made these arguments already, I think they were sufficiently exposed.

 

Quote:
BUT this thread was essentially started to express an opinion and to understand why sexuality had to be mixed into rational ideas of why God doesn't exist.

Cool, and we cleared that up in the whole this site is also about other irrationalities.

 

Quote:
Again, it's unfortuate that it went this far, i'll be VERY carefull how i word things in the future.

We should always be careful how we word things, additionally some of us are better at it then others, and we shouldn't take that advantage for granted. I don't think it's unfortunate this went this far, I've enjoyed checking this thread throughout the day.

 

Quote:
Thank you for mocking my freedom of expression.

Sarcasm? We never mocked your freedom of expression, how ironic you started this thread to deter how someone else chose to use their freedom of expression. Ever the more ironic that you used a mocking form (sarcasm) to express displeasure at what you perceive as mockery.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
AbandonMyPeace wrote: So

AbandonMyPeace wrote:

So yes things can be unfair and other people will very likely play dirty when there is competition. You just do your best and hold yourself up to your own morals and fuck what everyone else thinks.

 

Sealed

 

Agreed!  This whole debate is about choice and personal standards so it's entirely subjective.  Not everyone recognizes sexism, not everyone is effected by it and not everyone cares -- we are all right and we are all wrong.  If we get rid of the bases for these issues (eliminating the biblical teachings women are below men would be a HUGE start) then it will probably all resolve itself.... hopefully that is something we can all agree on!  WOW...if so, maybe everyone on this thread does have some common ground! Smiling

 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: In my

Vorax wrote:

In my world I can discriminate against women based on their looks because I am a male boss and have 13 employees - I can lay off the ugly and hire the beautiful! Heck, fire the guys too...I want hot women in my office! Yay me! Smiling

....err..wait...I suck if I do that... Sad

No, you don't suck if you do that, especially if you run a strip club. If on the other hand you run a construction company and none of the women have any clue how to put up scaffolding you might have a problem. Your stupidity would result in your own failure in life, which would likely result in your business going bankrupt, which would result in your increased chances of poverty, which would result in your lower chances at spreading your seed, and thereby increasing your chances at success.

 

Quote:
Point being - though you make the point that women shouldn't have to cover up when going for a job interview, you guys missed the point that the entire reason that she has an advantage is becasue of the sexist society that we live in. It's not the women that are at fault! It's the men and the religions (and others it seems) that want to keep the status quo.

For the umpteenth time we are not interested in titties or legs or women because of religion we are interested in them because if we weren't we would fucking die.

 

Quote:
Read my other thread a couple before this regarding how the world would be if it was men who had to dress up. Also, don't discount the human factor, people get angry...and finally don't discount that looks fade, and companies that hire based on looks instead of qualifications are self-destructing. There are lots of problems with this at a societal level that you aren't accounting for.

Exactly the company that hires solely on looks stands less chance then a company that factors in the specific evolutionary advantages needed to thrive in that specific work environment. A strip club owner needs to hire hot girls, a law office needs to hire anyone intelligent enough to handle the job, in neither case is there equality and in neither case would I want equality.

 

Quote:
Just some thoughts...fun video though - I just think it addressed the wrong point.

For the recor, we were expecting the two of you to laugh the video off, and we'd all have a beer together.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote:   i wear

Drea wrote:

 

i wear makeup because i like to be beautiful, i take pride in my hair, my clothes etc because i like how i look. I would not leverage myself with someone equally qualified by exploiting my looks and sexuality.

Keep wearing the make up, please just recognize that by being an attractive woman there is no way for you to stop using that advantage over other women who don't have that advantage unless you put a burlap sack over your body... a burqa would do as well.

YOU USE YOUR LOOKS EVERYDAY AS AN ADVANTAGE WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.

 

Quote:
I have later come to realize that it's a site for atheists but not about atheism for everyone.

I came to this site because i thought this was a site for christians to go for education.

It's a place for anyone to get an education including atheists and muslims. It's more specifically a place to find anything irrational about our planet and talk about it. The biggest irrational threats our society has get faced by us. Today we decided to tackle the irrational notion that women (or men) should cover up for any reason, if they would rather reveal their skin.

 

Quote:
You didn't reach me, I was already reached. Christians in most cases aren't ready to hear/see many of the ideas expressed on this site and i was mistaken to think that the site objectives were to help them.

The objectives are to help anyone with an irrationality.

 

Quote:
I do think, however, that to have a site that is about atheism for people it might be nice to show harmony between two sides with glaringly opposite ideas.

To some degree don't you think we did that today? I'm not mad at you, I'm not angry, just conveying my views, and you're conveying yours. We disagree, but I'd still head to dinner with you and hubby on a double date and have a good time.

 

Quote:
...videos don't have to be made to mock this concept, and not even with the curtesy of getting the message right.

It's a funny video, but with the wrong message. I have no problem you addressing it to me, but it's very unfortunate that all sorts of people will think really negatively of me when this wasn't the message i was making at all.

I contend it was in fact what your views look like if we hold them up to scrutiny. You have shown me nothing to prove otherwise.

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Vorax

Vorax wrote:
AbandonMyPeace wrote:

So yes things can be unfair and other people will very likely play dirty when there is competition. You just do your best and hold yourself up to your own morals and fuck what everyone else thinks.

 

Sealed

 

Agreed! This whole debate is about choice and personal standards so it's entirely subjective. Not everyone recognizes sexism, not everyone is effected by it and not everyone cares -- we are all right and we are all wrong. If we get rid of the bases for these issues (eliminating the biblical teachings women are below men would be a HUGE start) then it will probably all resolve itself.... hopefully that is something we can all agree on! WOW...if so, maybe everyone on this thread does have some common ground! Smiling

 

 

Well Im not a follower of the bible. I have never thought women were below us. Actually they have us by the balls. Quite literally. Wink

 

To soon for those kind of jokes? 


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Vorax

Sapient wrote:
Vorax wrote:

In my world I can discriminate against women based on their looks because I am a male boss and have 13 employees - I can lay off the ugly and hire the beautiful! Heck, fire the guys too...I want hot women in my office! Yay me! Smiling

....err..wait...I suck if I do that... Sad

No, you don't suck if you do that, especially if you run a strip club. If on the other hand you run a construction company and none of the women have any clue how to put up scaffolding you might have a problem. Your stupidity would result in your own failure in life, which would likely result in your business going bankrupt, which would result in your increased chances of poverty, which would result in your lower chances at spreading your seed, and thereby increasing your chances at success.

Exactly my point and yet it happens but it doesn't mean less seed of those doing it is spread - it's ususually less seed of the intelligent women who didn't look good over the not so intellligent who did.  BTW: I've got no issue if the intelligent women was the beautiful one, but I would hope the guy recognized it.

For the record, I am in R&D for software company and as director I had the opportunity to hire on many occasions...you would be surprised how many women had "exotic dancer" on resumes I recieved.  None got an interview because none were qualified but had I not had this standard I am sure I could have hired them then fired them later if I felt they were giving my department a bad name.  If they had of had the top qualifications I would have had them in for an interview, it just happens they didn't...lots of IT people here in my town Eye-wink 

 

Quote:
Quote:
Point being - though you make the point that women shouldn't have to cover up when going for a job interview, you guys missed the point that the entire reason that she has an advantage is becasue of the sexist society that we live in. It's not the women that are at fault! It's the men and the religions (and others it seems) that want to keep the status quo.

For the umpteenth time we are not interested in titties or legs or women because of religion we are interested in them because if we weren't we would fucking die.

Me too, but that was not the point being discussed.  Drea was talking about equality and the image of using sex to sell atheism (right or wrongly)-- I was talking about sexism and it's male domination origns in society (right or wrongly)...for the umpteenth time. Eye-wink

 

Quote:
 

Quote:
Read my other thread a couple before this regarding how the world would be if it was men who had to dress up. Also, don't discount the human factor, people get angry...and finally don't discount that looks fade, and companies that hire based on looks instead of qualifications are self-destructing. There are lots of problems with this at a societal level that you aren't accounting for.

Exactly the company that hires solely on looks stands less chance then a company that factors in the specific evolutionary advantages needed to thrive in that specific work environment. A strip club owner needs to hire hot girls, a law office needs to hire anyone intelligent enough to handle the job, in neither case is there equality and in neither case would I want equality.

Agreed. 

 

Quote:
Just some thoughts...fun video though - I just think it addressed the wrong point.

For the recor, we were expecting the two of you to laugh the video off, and we'd all have a beer together.

I'm totally up for the beer and Drea is too. Smiling  We debate seriously and stick to our guns, but it's no hard feelings...  For me, I can say it's been enlightening and I am always open to other views and can be swayed with good arguments.  Your points haven't fallend on deaf ears entirely.  As I said before, I think we all want the same thing we just aren't sure how to achieve it.  As long as we agree that personal freedom and liberty is the objective, the rest is just logistics.

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
It's not about me using my

It's not about me using my attractiveness as leverage as a norm. It's about if i went out and deliberately used it go take advantage of a situation, like a job inteview. That's when i take issue with it.

I'll be the first to say that i'll bat my eyes to get a better deal, or toss my hair or whatever, but no one suffers for that. But i've seen when women try to undercut other women by one-upmanship and it's not cool with me. I don't do that. I really wish for a day when women didn't have to be so concerned. I don't mean to be aggressive saying this but... if Kelly was in an accident and needed facial reconstructive surgery, i don't think she'd be as distant to the women who don't have her advantages. If she was disfigured she would wish that people saw the goodness inside, not be repelled that she wasn't attractive. I bet that you, loving her (i assume) as you do would want people to see the woman you love, not see a disfigured and asthetically unpleasing person they don't want to have marring their workplace landscape.

I'd love to have dinner with you guys. You know our contact information and our city... if you get a chance to swing by up here we'd be very happy to meet with you. We have some FANTASTIC beers up here and a wide selection of fabulous imports, I'd recommend some from a great brewery in Montreal.

I'm half Brit half Scot, don't get much more stubborn and opinionated and stodgy than that Laughing out loud I don't easily admit i'm wrong and i'll bust my bra trying to get my point across. If i'm wrong then fine but i really have to be swayed. I think perhaps this might be a case of us all being right and no one actually understanding points or willing to make concessions. But... that's the cool part of strong individuals. It's world interpretation, and it's all rational approach based on perseptions and personal philosophies. I just have a humanist viewpoint is all.

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote:   I'll be the

Drea wrote:

 

I'll be the first to say that i'll bat my eyes to get a better deal, or toss my hair or whatever

 

I dont have that option. Equality just went out the window huh. Tongue out


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I am so incredibly late to

I am so incredibly late to this party.  (Must have been the traffic.)

The video was a great chuckle. 

However, what I really want is a refrigerator magnet with Josh_Darth's picture. There's something about it that's just toooooo adorable for words. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Abandon... lol, it's not

Abandon... lol, it's not fair... I once bought a 3k vaccuum (i was young and stupid) off a door-to-door sales man because he was a gorgeous black football player needed a bit of side cash he said. Lol... i'm suseptible too to men i guess for the exact same reasons. But, to be fair, he was the only one that came to my door so i wasn't taking business from anyone else. That said, he probably got the job too because he was hot and would be talking to a lot of mothers and yes, hot men can make the topic of vaccuuming interesting. Anyhow, to this day i regret buying that farking vaccuum (it is good but... 3k on my credit card!!! dude, i had to apply for financing to get that credit card to get that vaccuum... that's how much of a sucker i was, the guy came with the documentation for the card AND the vaccuum). Anyhow, had i the brains and insight at the time to look past his looks and see that i was being retarded i wouldn't have been so retarded!!! But... my vision was clouded and i can say pretty well that i'm a skeptic of everything now. Maybe i grew up too... but i try to look past the exterior and see the person inside. I'm as much chained to this society as i wish there was a way to break free from it. Anyhow, a little story of my own to make fun of me a bit  Laughing out loud

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote: I'll be the

Drea wrote:

I'll be the first to say that i'll bat my eyes to get a better deal, or toss my hair or whatever, but no one suffers for that.

Yes, in fact the woman who isn't as attractive has less of a chance based on your own reasoning as compared to you and you are in fact contributing to other womens oppression as a result of your actions (again based solely on your own words).

 

Quote:
if Kelly was in an accident and needed facial reconstructive surgery, i don't think she'd be as distant to the women who don't have her advantages.

She'd probably still be smarter than almost all of them as well.  Will there be a coma/brain disorder in this example as well?  Do you consider her intellect something that she should use to her advantage but not her looks?

 

Quote:
If she was disfigured she would wish that people saw the goodness inside, not be repelled that she wasn't attractive.

She already would like it if people saw the goodness inside. This doesn't mean she should avoid people seeing her aesthetically pleasing exterior as well (and vice versa).  I'm sure she appreciates both.  

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline

Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Sapient Kelly is

Sapient

Kelly is intelligent, just as intelligent as many unattractive women. She is equal on that basis. Absolutely she should use her intelligence to advance herself, this is an equal playing field. You can have two women for an interview, one unattractive, one attractive, BOTH equally intelligent. A woman interviewer or male interviewer BOTH would probably pick the attractive one because it's pleasing asthetically. It's human nature. My point, that i've made before is when that a woman takes it one level higher and uses her sexuality to get it. It's unfortunate that beautiful women get benefits, but it's worse when women who aren't qualified for a position intellectually as an equal to someone who is and then tries to assert themselves sexually and exploit male weakness. THAT is what i'm referring to. No doubt Kelly is intelligent and i'm not saying she's not attractive. Lets just leave Kelly out of this, it's a principal i'm talking about, not her specifically.

When i go to a job interview i go with a solid resume, good references, and am well put together with an expensive outfit. I only wear designer stuff generally, including makeup. We have a brand new BMW that i would probably arrive in. I want to put on a show that i've got it all together, that i can be a top performer, that i can take on the world. The one thing i don't do is wear super fitted shirts to get the job or things that show off my ass too much. I have a good looking face but that doesn't mean that women without a good looking face, or nice rack can't pull off that same show. Tons do all the time. Takes nothing to get a great hairdo, flattering clothes, nice getup and look like you have it together. It's different when you get all dressed up and then unbutton enough to give that dude interviewing you a nice peek/tease knowing you aren't exactly qualified for that position and someone else is much better for it. And unfortunately that's sometimes enough to get you hired. Sucks for the people out there that don't do that.

Look, it's not about finding eqality in intelligence. It's exploiting sexuality to the detriment of others. If kelly had an accident she'd be more than qualified for many jobs, assuming she gets them instead of someone better looking and not as qualified.

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote:

Drea wrote:

Sapient

Kelly is intelligent, just as intelligent as many unattractive women.

I don't think you're understanding me. Kelly is nowhere near as intelligent as "many unnatractive women" as Kelly is likely MORE intelligent than 99% of the women on Earth.

 

Quote:
She is equal on that basis. Absolutely she should use her intelligence to advance herself, this is an equal playing field. You can have two women for an interview, one unattractive, one attractive, BOTH equally intelligent.

There aren't many women "equally intelligent" to Kelly just as there aren't many that are "equally attractive."

I've given you the data to work with and you changed it, presumably to avoid the corner you'd be backed into in this predicament. How should more intelligent women use their intelligence? Using your own logic as it pertains to looks we must assume that you're either an advocate of women curtailing their intelligence to level the playing field or you are a hypocrite. Which is it? Or show me how it is any other. Show me how more intelligent women should throttle their intelligence in the same way they are supposed to when it pertains to beauty.

 

Quote:

A woman interviewer or male interviewer BOTH would probably pick the attractive one because it's pleasing asthetically. It's human nature.

Thank you. So are you yet willing to admit to achieve true equality in this department we must all where sacks to cover our looks or design a pill that can outsmart natural human desires.

 

 

Quote:
My point, that i've made before is when that a woman takes it one level higher and uses her sexuality to get it.

Additionally some men do the same thing. I wouldn't turn down a chance to get somewhere based on my looks either.

 

Quote:
It's unfortunate that beautiful women get benefits, but it's worse when women who aren't qualified for a position intellectually as an equal to someone who is and then tries to assert themselves sexually and exploit male weakness. THAT is what i'm referring to.

Yes we all agree, that's not cool. However you can't fault the woman, it's not her fault. She's doing what she needs to do to survive.

 

Quote:
When i go to a job interview i go with a solid resume, good references, and am well put together with an expensive outfit. I only wear designer stuff generally, including makeup. We have a brand new BMW that i would probably arrive in. I want to put on a show that i've got it all together, that i can be a top performer, that i can take on the world. The one thing i don't do is wear super fitted shirts to get the job or things that show off my ass too much. I have a good looking face but that doesn't mean that women without a good looking face, or nice rack can't pull off that same show. Tons do all the time. Takes nothing to get a great hairdo, flattering clothes, nice getup and look like you have it together.

BMW's take "nothing." "Designer" clothes take nothing? You are using the money you have accumulates as a result of your money making abilities to catapult yourself and set yourself apart from the other prospective candidadtes. You are doing exactly what you claim to be against, except the example isn't a revealing top, it's a classy and sophisticated look. In both examples both people are "using what they got" to get where they want to go.

Do you lend out that BMW to women in the ghetto to arrive at an interview with a level playing field to you? No. And why not? Because it would restrict your ability to make the kind of money you need to make and deserve to make to survive.

We all use what we have, some of us, like Kelly, are lucky enough to have it all.

 

Quote:
It's different when you get all dressed up and then unbutton enough to give that dude interviewing you a nice peek/tease knowing you aren't exactly qualified for that position and someone else is much better for it.

What about the girl who is not only more qualified than you and the rest of the field, but she also has the button undone?

Should the interviewer not give her the job?

 

Quote:
And unfortunately that's sometimes enough to get you hired. Sucks for the people out there that don't do that.

It sucks for the people who "can't" do that, as for the people that "don't" but can, that's their own fault. The people who "can't" do that hopefully for their own benefit have a fleet of other positive qualities they can utilize. Let's take charisma and charm for example. Should someone that's most positive quality is charisma, throttle their charisma as it's unfair to those that are more qualified but less charismatic? Do you see how ridiculous this sounds when we use any other example other than beauty? This is really starting to sound like remnants of religious and societal programming.

 

Quote:
Look, it's not about finding eqality in intelligence. It's exploiting sexuality to the detriment of others.

And anyone more charismatic than you, would be exploiting their charisma at the detriment of you. Do you find that unfair? Is it ok to be excessively charismatic but not excessively attractive? If it is, why?

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Sapient, it's great that

Sapient, it's great that you hold her in such high regard. I think it's a testament to how you value her. To say she's smarter than 99% of all the other women on this planet is a push. Personally, beauty is subjective and there will be men that don't find her attractive. There are men that won't find me attractive, she doesn't have "it" she has parts of it, you see her thru your own glasses and she's perfect, as it should be.

I'm not going to debate with you futher about your side vs mine. I've made my arguements, and i've presented as much logic for my side as you've presented for yours. I have given senarios to illustrate my points, as you have given for yours. My ideal is humanist in perspective. Charisma, designer clothes... everyone has a chance at getting it. Those who don't have a chance because they have had rough times, well, i do my part to help them out. I give a lot to charity, i volunteer time, and i have future plans that include a lot of charity work and not for profit organization sponsorship. My best friend isn't a looker, but she's got TONS of charisma and everyone likes her, very opinionated and brilliant. She's not gotten jobs because someone better looking trumped her even tho she clearly had that candidate out classed with business skills, and experience.

You can support your enigma vision of Kelly all you want but it doesn't reflect the norm. It doesn't reflect what women experience daily. I've never set out to attack Kelly and using her as an example is just as wacky as trying to fit me into that same category unless you want to say i'm not as smart as her which is ok for you to think. You've made this extremely personal when my statement was a benchmark observation of society.

Do you think, yes or no, that women should use sex to get ahead of other female candidates who are equally qualified with equal charactor attributes? 

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote: She's not

Drea wrote:

She's not gotten jobs because someone better looking trumped her even tho she clearly had that candidate out classed with business skills, and experience.

 

Did you review the resumes of both candidates and do the interviewing?

 

Im just curious how exactly you know your friend was the better person for the job.  


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
In IT, understanding

In IT, understanding business applications/infrastructure and years of experience mean something. She has worked with those systems for a long time, she understands the business principals cold, she understands the software, has many years of trial and error under her belt and loses to someone recently into the work force for the same paycheck who can't be (and has since shown) as productive and knowledgeable as her. She wanted this position, within the same company organization so she KNOWS who filled this role. That's a real world senario of someone unjustly treated. It's also a good reason why she'd like to move to a new company but jerks are everywhere.

I understand what you are getting at, and how can i really know the situation, but... i worked for the government for a long time doing IT and it's the same thing. The great thing about the department i was in was that oddly, the group i was in was ALL female. This didn't mean i didn't interact with others outside my group. All this to say, i've seen real world situations where women are marginalized. Life isn't fair, but i'd love to see society get to a place where women can confidently apply for a job and be judged fairly, beautiful and non alike, based on the skillset they offer. 

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
I dont doubt that your

I dont doubt that your friend is highly qualified for her job. I just dont know that the other person was any less qualified. I wouldnt know that. Tongue out

 

Well I have had some beers and I have work tomorrow. So I am off. Cant wait to see the new stuff on this thread in the morning!

 

GOOD NIGHT! 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote: Sapient, it's

Drea wrote:

Sapient, it's great that you hold her in such high regard. I think it's a testament to how you value her. To say she's smarter than 99% of all the other women on this planet is a push.

I recognize that's a "push." I was gonna say she was the smartest women on the planet, but I held back and remained very conservative. Eye-wink

 

Quote:
Personally, beauty is subjective and there will be men that don't find her attractive. There are men that won't find me attractive, she doesn't have "it" she has parts of it, you see her thru your own glasses and she's perfect, as it should be.

Agreed on all accounts.

 

Quote:
Charisma, designer clothes... everyone has a chance at getting it. Those who don't have a chance because they have had rough times, well, i do my part to help them out. I give a lot to charity, i volunteer time, and i have future plans that include a lot of charity work and not for profit organization sponsorship.

I think you're seeing my point now. Instead of trying to hinder the positive qualities of people with advantages let's work to build up those without the same advantages. I just don't think we should be unnaturally throttling our advantages so that people with less advantages get a more fair shake.

 

Quote:
My best friend isn't a looker, but she's got TONS of charisma and everyone likes her, very opinionated and brilliant. She's not gotten jobs because someone better looking trumped her even tho she clearly had that candidate out classed with business skills, and experience.

And I have to sleep at night. It seems unfair, but we're adults and intelligent, I think we're wise enough to understand that fairness is not a prerequisite to existence. How'd your friend end up making out? She find a job?

 

Quote:
I've never set out to attack Kelly and using her as an example is just as wacky as trying to fit me into that same category unless you want to say i'm not as smart as her which is ok for you to think.

I'm not saying you're not as smart as her, I am making no claims on your intellect, I don't know you well enough to do so. I'm saying she's smarter than the overwhelming majority and she wisely uses that intelligence as an unfair advantage over everyone who is less intelligent. I see your argument as hypocritical or at the very least unreasonable as you don't seem willing to concede that we must use our advantages or suffer, and beauty is an advantage just like intellect.

 

Quote:
You've made this extremely personal when my statement was a benchmark observation of society.

I took nothing personal, please don't take anything I'm saying personal as well.

 

Quote:
Do you think, yes or no, that women should use sex to get ahead of other female candidates who are equally qualified with equal charactor attributes?

I don't know of many people that have equal character attributes. Most of us have a set of attributes that tend to set us apart from others. However with that said, if there were two people of exactly equal attributes and qualifications, identical backgrounds, everything was exactly the same with the exception that one of them is gorgeous and the other is ugly, I say go get em hottie, you got the job.

Assuming you would be in the position of being the attractive girl in the above scenario... if you're generous (and likely stupid) enough to hand your position over to the ugly girl because you dont want to accept that your looks were what put you over the top, then I tip my hat to you in your overwhelming generosity.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Well, after 5 pages of

Well, after 5 pages of comments, all that I can say is:

I do not objectify women.

Let's put some of this pent up energy to work with some trivia questions:

Easiest to hardest:

What day is International Women's Day celebrated? Did you know there was one?

What day is Birth Mother's Day celebrated?

Who was the first female president of the ACLU?

Which First Lady of the United States was a key person to ending a war and why?

What was the name of the captain of the most successful Russian T-34 tank to roll off the assembly line at Chelyabinsk/Tankagrad? What day and what was this person's fate?

What is the name of the last remaining Russian female dive bomber from the Great Patriotic War?

 

Unfortunately, attraction to physical attributes exists. However, I would turn away every crush that I ever had to date Ghada Jhamshir. I'm willing to bet that there are more men that are 'sapiosexual' than just me. (BTW, that is a word that a woman gave me.) And NO, Brian. It isn't 'sapientsexual' LOL

And here is one of the classiest women on myspace:

http://www.myspace.com/sixxxbitch

 She's another one of my calendar picks, Kelly.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Sapient, You stated two

Sapient,

You stated two things:

Quote:
I see your argument as hypocritical or at the very least unreasonable as you don't seem willing to concede that we must use our advantages or suffer, and beauty is an advantage just like intellect.

and

Quote:
However with that said, if there were two people of exactly equal attributes and qualifications, identical backgrounds, everything was exactly the same with the exception that one of them is gorgeous and the other is ugly, I say go get em hottie, you got the job.

Well, im not talking about looks, i'm talking about exploiting your sexuality to give advantage. Please understand this. 

To gain an unfair advantage (for a job say) people with the means can:

> blackmail

> bribe

> leverage favours

> use social status to while underqualified etc.

> tempt with sex or tease with the intent to turn on (sexual exploitation)

At what point do you draw the line? I think none of the above are ok. That is my humanist view.  It's not irrational by any means. In fact the reason we are having this topic is irrational because if it was a perfect world this wouldn't be an issue anyhow.

This is separate from what men want in a woman for their own personal satisfaction. If a woman wants a man, she can make it sexual, please do. If a man wants a woman and he pulls out his hot car, wallet and tight ass... please do. I really don't care what people do to get the available guy. This has NOTHING to do with relationships, it's about world senarios, common daily interactions where people exploit sexuality above what is necessary.

Please note, i'm keeping this about SEXUAL EXPLOITATION, not intelligence as we can both say attractive and non attractive women can be equally intelligent and have the same requirements for a job. Assuming Kelly is as intelligent as you say, she very likely would me more than qualified for the job she is trained to do. Cudos to that.

That's my non-irrational view. It's not going to change Sapient. You can't prove to me my view is any more irrational then yours is. Beauty is an advantage, but sexual exploitation, in my opinion is not acceptable to gain advantages over others. Yes, i rank it with blackmail, bribery etc. Other things many others would do that i wouldn't.

I think the point i can concede however is that possibly neither of us is "right" and we should accept that we have different perspectives. Neither is "wrong", neither is "right" and it will be interesting to see over the next 50-100 years (hoping for the long age pill) where women take this. 

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Perhaps it is that I just

Perhaps it is that I just don't understand your objections either?

I've read this whole thread and it just goes back and forth with very little objective analysis and lots of 'feelings' and 'emotions'.

I don't understand why you view it as some sort of degradation.

Can you argue that any image or symbol associated with the RRS is ineffective?

Can you argue that any image or symbol associated with the RRS is definitive of atheism as a whole?

Soooooo, where are we going with this?

Much conciliation has been made with regard to the different 'moral' arguments from individuals for no ethical reason at all.

Frankly, we spend all too much time worrying about people's delicate sensibilities. Deleting 'offensive' remarks so as not to offend anyone and playing politically correct police for the benefit of others and their personal ideas of 'morality'. Fuck that.

In case no one else was paying attention, it isn't even politically correct to be an atheist in America.

Perhaps I should do a picture wearing a damned burka? 

There is a secret to filtering the offensive images and remarks to keep them from your computer screen. Specially encoded by Microsoft and Apple. Hold down the CTRL button and press the 'W' button.

Have a nice day and I can't wait to see us use this keyboard energy toward atheist activism.

Love y'all. Mean it. 

 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: Frankly,

darth_josh wrote:
Frankly, we spend all too much time worrying about people's delicate sensibilities. Deleting 'offensive' remarks so as not to offend anyone and playing politically correct police for the benefit of others and their personal ideas of 'morality'. Fuck that.

You put a pretty fine point on that.

In the realm of 'picking your battles' this one certainly falls short. You're right about at least half of this conversation being about feelings. Not really much of a discussion can come from it but we keep trying. Dumb atheists. It's the godlessness that makes us do it Cool

There was a similar discussion regarding some dumb asshole being nasty about athiests in his dumpy newspaper. The topic of his needing to apologize came up. Some thought it was reasonable to request / demand it, others thought it would be just another step toward totalitarian censorship.

I don't mean to derail, Darth_Josh just brings up some good points and, now that I think about it, this topic has quite a few PC / Censorship overtones.  


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
I'm fine with letting this

I'm fine with letting this drop.

My whole point was i didn't understand why women had to mix sexual fantasy with messages. Period.

It then degrated into worse but meh. Censorship? I'm not cool with that but i am aligned with an atheist/secular organization that is taking our gov to court to make them stop saying the lords prayer in meetings. Picking stupid battles? I call it progress one step at a time.

 In my humanist views, i would hope one day women could make a statment and not feel it will be heard louder by taking off their clothes. It's a very sad reflection on society and humanity. That's my opinion and my opinion, sadly, isn't up for debate.

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Drea, I'm really not trying

Drea,

I'm really not trying to attack anything. It doesn't have to 'drop' if you or I are not satisfied with our answers.

I just have a few questions.

When you say: "In my humanist views..." which are those?

Are you professing that your opinions concerning this issue are aligned with other humanists as well?

Do you see any problems with the message that www.humanism.org is trying to spread?

Did you do a humanist vision video? When is that contest going to be over?

Are you familiar with www.americanhumanist.org

See. I'm an atheist. I'm human. However, I don't subscribe to any system of living, particularly theism but most definitely not excluding humanism. I'm not a real big fan of people with exclusory practices. For details, I can pass on a thread outlining some issues if you would like?

It seems to me that once someone sets themselves upon the 'high ground' then rather than only raise up others that concur with other views that those on the 'high ground' profess then we have an exclusion.

Would you concur?

 

 

One last... Did you know or find any of my answers to the trivia questions? I think I missed the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that there are more ways to 'objectify' women than looking at pictures.

Some women are objects of adoration because of their accomplishments or strengths regardless of their physical appearances. I have never seen a picture of Yulia Dneprovska, but I am overwhelmed with admiration for her.

Here is Ghada Jamshir:

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh

darth_josh wrote:

Drea,

I'm really not trying to attack anything. It doesn't have to 'drop' if you or I are not satisfied with our answers.

I am not answering for her entirely, but I have discussed this with her and I think she is simply admiting that you guys don't see things the way she does and that is ok. Just as you don't see her point, she doesnt' see yours. It's merely an intellectual exercise. It is a philosphical difference - her ethics and values are merely aligned differently then yours (and mine).

Quote:

I just have a few questions.

When you say: "In my humanist views..." which are those?

Are you professing that your opinions concerning this issue are aligned with other humanists as well?

This I think I can answer as she would (or closely...ok this is my answer! Eye-wink ) We share a great deal in common with regards to what we call "humanistic views" - First, we don't subscribe to the classical humanist philopsphy beyond the idea that humans can and should work together for the beterment of all - without god all we have is each other. She posted a quote from an Atheist the other day (around here somewhere) that pretty much describes exactly what we follow. By this philosophy if you are hurting others you are basically hurting yourself (simplification and various levels, but thats the gist).

Quote:

Do you see any problems with the message that www.humanism.org is trying to spread?

Did you do a humanist vision video? When is that contest going to be over?

I haven't read the site and am not compelled too. As to the contest, we've only been on the site a few days Smiling (or is the contest on the humanist site? either way..I don't think I'll be doing a video on it Smiling)

Quote:
Are you familiar with www.americanhumanist.org

See. I'm an atheist. I'm human. However, I don't subscribe to any system of living, particularly theism but most definitely not excluding humanism. I'm not a real big fan of people with exclusory practices. For details, I can pass on a thread outlining some issues if you would like?

I've been a bonified Atheist for 20 years now - I came to my humanistic view of the world simply by analyzing what might best serve the species seeing as there is no god. I want my seed to go forward and humans working together is the best way to ensure that - i am of the belief that most athiests will end up trying to better the planet for our species as opposed to for themselves. I have hope for humanity.

Quote:
It seems to me that once someone sets themselves upon the 'high ground' then rather than only raise up others that concur with other views that those on the 'high ground' profess then we have an exclusion.

Would you concur?

Having morals and ehtics is not a high ground - we are social creatures and our morals are not god given, they are developed and are a natural part of our evolution. By workding together humans have improved their survival rates and the same will hold for our future generations. What you call the high gound sounds like morals and ethics to me - and they are necessary. To deny our social nature and genetic history in favor of "no rules" is as irrational as religion.

 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Hey Darth, Welcome to

Hey Darth,

Welcome to continue, but i don't have a ton more to add that I haven't already. Anyhow, here goes. And yes, my hubby is writing while i am so... hope we don't overlap too much. 

darth_josh wrote:

Drea,

I'm really not trying to attack anything. It doesn't have to 'drop' if you or I are not satisfied with our answers.

nope  Laughing out loud

Quote:
 

I just have a few questions.

When you say: "In my humanist views..." which are those?

Well, i've read those sites before and am not aligned with their views either. I call myself an apatheist because wikipedia has a good definition for it and it suits me. I don't and can't call myself aligned with these organizations. I generally run solo with label affiliations. But, in general you could say i'm a humanitarian and fight for equality and fairness. I can also say in good faith that i haven't always been the size i am now, Sapient challenged me to walk in a fat suit for a day and i would change my mind and use what i have for my advantage. Well, i can show pictures of when i didn't look like this too. My original post was about using sex to sell an unrelated message. It then went into Kelly saying she has no problem with using her assets to her advantage and saying that she wished that beautiful people would out breed the non beautiful and saying she doesn't apologize for that view. I'm not saying she has to apologize for her view, but i don't share it. To put it bluntly, Adolf Hitler wanted everyone blond and blue eyed... He had a right to his opinion too, apparetnly others disagreed.

What i CAN say is that i follow this:

Madalyn Murray (later O'Hair), wrote a document used in the court case Murray v. Curlett, 1961-APR-27. It reads, in part:

"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth - for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter. He knows that we are our brother's keeper and keepers of our lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now."

www.religioustolerance.org/atheist1.htm

 

Quote:
 

Are you professing that your opinions concerning this issue are aligned with other humanists as well?

Do you see any problems with the message that www.humanism.org is trying to spread?

Did you do a humanist vision video? When is that contest going to be over?

Are you familiar with www.americanhumanist.org

I don't follow humanism as an organization, i don't like to be aligned or labelled with an organziation bacause i don't want to feel obligated to back all their views, i follow the creed above which i think is well laid out. 

I'm also not American, if there is a Canadian humanist site i'd be more inclined to go read it. But as i say... I go by my experience, observations and what i think of as my own ethical principals.

Quote:
 

See. I'm an atheist. I'm human. However, I don't subscribe to any system of living, particularly theism but most definitely not excluding humanism. I'm not a real big fan of people with exclusory practices. For details, I can pass on a thread outlining some issues if you would like?

It seems to me that once someone sets themselves upon the 'high ground' then rather than only raise up others that concur with other views that those on the 'high ground' profess then we have an exclusion.

Would you concur?

 

I concur that by aligning onesself with an organized set of philosophies would mean that person has to maintain that standard without flexibility. I don't profess to be on any high ground other than the one that my own code of ethics provides me. If this means that i exclude others who don't follow my values as being of my standard then yes, exclusion occurs. It doesn't mean i value them less as beings with rights to their opinions, but it means that i exclude their opinions from my own. 

 

Quote:

One last... Did you know or find any of my answers to the trivia questions? I think I missed the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that there are more ways to 'objectify' women than looking at pictures.

Some women are objects of adoration because of their accomplishments or strengths regardless of their physical appearances. I have never seen a picture of Yulia Dneprovska, but I am overwhelmed with admiration for her.

I don't have time atm to check this out because i'm really desperate for sleep but i promise i will do so. Please note that thru this thread i have been referencing women who advance themselves using sexuality. I talked tonight with a few people who i know online and they are men. Both worked at the same company, one was aligned for a promotion, but it went to the underqualified woman who was sleeping with the boss's boss. Is this fair? Did this woman abuse her position? They sure thought it was unfair and were rightly pissed off. Can this be likened to bribery for a job? to blackmail? Is she using something that she has the wrong way?

While i didn't start the thread this way, it has led to this discussion. Are you supporting the idea that the beautiful out breed the non beautiful of both sexes? Do you support the idea that women with the means to get ahead use sex to do it?

If you answer that you do not support these ideas, then i think we have a common way to end the thread. 

I LOVE to see women who are leaders get ahead. It is such a positive inspiration for everyone. Men and women can both respect men and women who make a difference, who are leaders in fields, who make great breakthroughs. I think it's absolutely great to be a fan of someone who has worked hard, earned the right to be called a hero for achievements. Man or woman alike.  

There are many many brilliant women, artists, scientists, athletes who didnt get to where they are by exploiting themselves and aren't ranked high on the great looks factor. But, looks being subjective, i find many women with dazzling grins, sparkling eyes very attractive in their own ways without the typical glam bone structure or whatever. Cudos to them! And that's not objectifying them, that's admiration, and i'd do the same to men who make a difference.

Quote:
 

 

Here is Ghada Jamshir:

 

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
I'm sorry. I didn't see

I'm sorry. I didn't see 'Canada' in here. That explains a lot. lol just kidding.

I don't think we're going to make any headway unless we examine a case by case scenario.

Vorax, your last statement intrigues me.

Vorax wrote:
To deny our social nature and genetic history in favor of "no rules" is as irrational as religion.

I don't think I was implying 'no rules'. I think it was more of a 'whose rules' question.

I do not value 'morals' because they are societally defined. I do value ethics because they are logically defined. The analysis would fit into a humanistic evaluation of the purported harm incurred by the idea of physical objectification of women.

Each alleged 'quality' of a human weighs in every analysis. We are labelling people. I admit it. It is the labels we willingly accept that mean the most as well as the labels that are honest.

Can anyone deny that Kelly is sexy?

Can anyone deny that Kelly is smart?

Can anyone deny that she is an atheist?

[Sorry, Kelly. You were top of mind at the time I was writing this. lol.]

Should any of those labels give her an advantage? Yes, because to say that they do not would be irrational denial.

Onto the ethical questions:

Should she use her sex appeal to get something she wants? Well, we already established that her qualities should give her an advantage.

Should she use her intellect? Yes, of course. As should we all.

Should she use her atheism? Great for shock factor at some parties. lol.

And now, should anyone use those qualities with her permission to achieve something else?

Is that final question the dilemma? Is that the issue needing a 'rule'? Are we to deny that advantage?

In the case of Amanda's picture, it wasn't the picture that prompted me to add her to my myspace friends, but her music. However, the picture prompted me to visit her profile. Do you see where I am coming from?

I conclude this post with my own 'To' remark by saying:

To deny that humans have advantages over other humans and use them is irrational; only when it is done without permission is it unethical.

Would that be a fitting 'rule' for this situation? 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote: Madalyn Murray

Drea wrote:

Madalyn Murray (later O'Hair), wrote a document used in the court case Murray v. Curlett, 1961-APR-27. It reads, in part:

I didn't realize this quote was of significance to you. I think I should address it. First, here is my mantra quote, "To shun ignorance and superstition, to embrace knowledge and reason, to become the sum of all the wisdom that one can absorb in a very limited lifetime—that is the purpose of humankind." - Ranjef

 

Now as for Madalyn Murray O'Hair (and I probably shouldn't talk smack as the President of American Atheists is in the process of purchasing an advertisement right now, but here it go)... she was a bitter and rude women. While she made significant advancements for seperation of Church and State she also did quite a bit to set atheists back. As best I can tell, it is her in part that is responsible for the misunderstanding that people have that atheists know for sure there is no god, as opposed to the true definition which is that atheists are simply without a belief in god. While her approach might be best to convince a religious person to deconvert (as her message was almost religious in nature) she attempted to speak on behalf of all atheists when making statements like the one made in court that you refer to, one that is so far off the mark, it's frustrating to see you put so much stock in it. While it might represent you (and that's great) it is a horribly innacurate portrayal of atheism. Atheism is one thing and one thing only, and that is LACK OF BELIEF IN A GOD. Madalyn went out of her way to avoid conformity by doing things like purposefully hiring ex felons. She forced her children to engage in all sorts of atheistic activism well before their time, and at some times against their will and unfairly. Her insultive nature rivaled anything we here at the squad say, certainly far from humanistic. She essentially held her sons (Bill) daughter captive and wouldn't let Bill anywhere near her. Bill of course is her son that became a Christian as a result of her oppresive detestable mothership. And if you're familiar, of course it is her nature, her propensity to hire criminals, and her disgustingly vile character to withhold her granddaughter from her son Bill that ultimately led to the granddaughters murder along with Madalyn and her other son.

Listen to our second show to hear how Madalyn Murray O'Hair kicked one of the most important atheist scholars of our time out of an American Atheist convention simply because his product was a book that debunked the bible. Madalyn said something to the effect of "we don't acknowledge the bible here" and kicked out her supposed friend at the time (Dennis McKinsey).

 

(man I hope this doesn't lose me an ad)

Ok... now to the quote, we'll take one sentence at a time... (oh... here: http://www.wjmurray.com/ --- and yes, his story checks out)

 

Quote:
An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god.

Bullshit. An atheist is without a belief in god. Some atheists hate themselves, most don't, but to draw a rule here is false. 1/1

 

Quote:
An Atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth - for all men together to enjoy.

Bullshit. An atheist is without a belief in a god. Some don't know for sure that heaven is here on earth. Some may be considering becoming Christian, some may believe there is a chance at an afterlife, but as a blanket rule all atheists don't "know" heaven is here on Earth. Invalid sentence #2.

 

Quote:
An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it.

She's almost hit the mark. The problem is she's speaking for all atheists again. While you and I might agree with every sentence in here, it's entirely false to make any blanket statement about atheists above and beyond "all atheists are without belief in god." There are likely some atheists out there that are so mentally weak that they are unable to find strength from within to get through life, they rely on a mother, wife, sibling, etc to help get through.

Yes, I follow the above sentence, but all atheists don't and the sentence is a lie. Invalid sentence #3/3.

 

Quote:
An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

Bullshit. Some atheists might not ever find a life of fulfilment or have any clue how to have one. We might hope that people try to find fulfillment in this manner, but to make a blanket claim about millions of atheists at any point other than "they lack belief in god" is invalid. Some people never are fulfilled, some people don't know how to find it, not all atheists know how to find it.

 

FWIW: Keep in mind, all babies are atheist and so far none of the above sentences represent anything a baby would be able to embrace. (yet all babies lack a belief in a god) 4 sentences down, 4 so far are false.

 

Quote:
Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god.

There are atheists out there that search their whole life to make sense of god, to try and believe in a god. I know some of these people. I'm throwing in at 5/5.

 

Quote:
An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church.

Bullshit. I know a handful of atheists (I don't like em, but they're out there) that actually believe Church is a therapeutic release for those who hold religion. I actually can name one atheist that would most likely rather see a church built. And atheists don't always "know" this. Some might claim to "know" it while others might "believe" it. 6/6

 

Quote:
An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said.

Like for example, hiring an ex con? She shoulda said a prayer. Not all atheists "know" this. Some atheists more rationally and logically "believe" this. Some may be willing to accept that it's entirely possible that a prayer holds more power than performing a basic deed.

I'm not sure how much you're shaking your head, but please realize my biggest problem here is the broad sweeping generalizations about a group of over 100 million people worldwide. There's a lot of room for differences in 100 million people, and those at the top of any echelon have a responsibility to uphold when they seem to be speaking for everyone. Had she said "I believe" "I know" rather than "atheists" throughout the quote, I likely wouldn't be saying a word. 7 sentences/ 7 invalid.

One more time.... THE ONLY THING ONE ATHEIST MUST HAVE IN COMMON WITH ANOTHER IS THE LACK OF BELIEF IN A GOD, AND SOMETIMES THAT'S ALL THEY DO HAVE IN COMMON.

 

Quote:
An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death.

Well this is her most invalid statement so far. Should I pull out the list of atheists that have committed suicide? Just two weeks ago the President of Internet Infidels (infidels.org) committed suicide. http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/23/bye-clark/

8 sentences, so far all are invalid.

 

Quote:
He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated.

LMAO! I know of atheists who don't give a shit about the poor, are major advocates of war, especially when it's U.S.A. heading off to battle. Yes, you might want those things, but it is a lie to say that "atheists" do. On that poverty vanquished note, have you ever heard of a Libertarian atheist?

Here's what all atheists agree on that they want: O <--- remember my empty hole?

9/9

 

Quote:
He wants man to understand and love man.

Bullshit. Some do, some don't give a shit.

10/10

Quote:
He wants an ethical way of life.

HA! I know quite a few unethical atheists who do whatever they can to catapult themselves regardless of ethics. Shit, deep inside you might have an ethical dilemma with our thoughts about women and sex from this thread.

11 sentences so far, all were bullshit. Will we find one that is accurate... let's hope...

 

Quote:
He knows that we cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter.

Nope, bullshit again. Some atheists know this, some believe it, some don't adhere to it at all. Some are hoping for an end to troubles in the hereafter I'm sure... with 100 million+ thinkers out there free from theism who knows what they believe. Madalyn certainly didn't, she had no clue. She knew what she believed, but her quote doesn't even seem to represent that. She was projecting atheistic utopia in this quote, one that doesn't represent all atheists, or even her for that matter.

12/12

 

Quote:
He knows that we are our brother's keeper and keepers of our lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now."

Bullshit. *throws hands up* tired... you figure it out.

13/13 bullshit, invalid sentences that are a horrible mischaracterization of atheism, which is one thing and one thing only, LACK OF BELIEF IN GOD.

 

Here's the proper quote....

Atheists believe that... actually judge I can't tell you what atheists believe. Atheists are unique as they don't have a specific holy book to guide their life, they are without a book to rely on to guide them and therefore I can't tell you what atheists believe, I can only tell you what they don't believe. And judge, I must tell you, the list is short... all atheists are absent of a belief in god. It's that simple judge.

 

 

And I managed to go 15 months without talking smack about her. Oh well. I guess the cat is out of the bag.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Shit. I still feel bad that

Shit. I still feel bad that I might have messed up the chance for you to get humanist money because of my 'fundamentalist' atheism.

Maybe the picture will get some money from someone looking for 'bear love'? lol

I left Madame O'Hair alone because I have picked on her parenting skills in the past elsewhere.

 

On a side note sort of on topic:

Ellen Johnson is physically mad hot! to me. Too bad she advocates atheism as a religion and uses a capital 'A' everywhere as a proper noun. Oh well, she's still an atheist activist and a woman of achievement.

I still haven't figured out what she considers an 'atheist environment' for raising children. Ideological segregation perhaps? Oh well, a topic for another day.

 

 

I propose a trade.

A picture of me with an appropriately placed american atheist symbol for a picture of Ellen Johnson with an appropriately placed RRS sign.

Sound fair? Just an idea. I'll ask her personally in September if you want?

 

[edit: spelling error] 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
I didn't say anywhere i

I didn't say anywhere i admire the woman, i was very clear that i thought it was a good idealogy, and well written.

Fine, perhaps you don't have to like it but what she wrote, whatever her agenda, is a great thing for me to get behind in terms of the ideas it represents.

To think that society will be fine without any rules, agenda and not collapse into anarchy because there are no standards i would suggest is not something to look forward to.

I won't propose that what i referenced is good for everyone but, it's good enough for me. I don't really care whta the context was, it does send a clear message to me. IF there was a positive thing she did with her life, maybe this was it. 

I might judge, but i'm not the jury. 

What is your rational response for your image of the would should everyone realize that O = religion? 

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: To deny

darth_josh wrote:

To deny that humans have advantages over other humans and use them is irrational; only when it is done without permission is it unethical.

Would that be a fitting 'rule' for this situation?

Totally agreed. 

No one is denying or saying anyone shouldn't use their genetic advantages.  What I think we are both saying is that there are lines of ethics that we will not cross when it comes to our advantages.  Everyone has these lines unless they are sociopaths. It's about drawing lines where we individually feel that humans have moved beyond acceptable social conduct and are now operating against social well being.  These are not static lines they change as societies values change.  

There are lines here that we are drawing differently based on what we believe will do less damage to society.  In other words, what we believe is ethical.  Considre the job interview scenario:

Is it ethical to look good for an interview - Yes

Is it ethical to sound intelligent at an interview - Yes

Is it  ethical to flirt during an interview - Borderline - personal call..I wouldn't take issue with it, but I wouldn't do it.

Is it ethical to use sexually suggestive behavior for an interview - No (my line of ethical conduct is crossed)

Is it ethical to offer sex or money in an interview - No

Is it ethical to threaten physical harm or blackmail in an interview - No

etc. 

 

This entire discussion is about where do we draw the lines.  All Drea has been saying is she draws the lines in a different place. 

 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
http://www.atheists.org/Athe

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/

Sapient, might want to review this before meeting with her.  :D 


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: This entire

Vorax wrote:
This entire discussion is about where do we draw the lines. All Drea has been saying is she draws the lines in a different place.

Drea wrote:
Women who treat all women equally as professionals will probably band together and backstab that skank outta there.

Well, I don't think we're just having a "you do as you like and I'll do as I like" conversation. It's obvious that Drea (it's so wierd having a conversation about someone that's right here) has some real problems with this issue, apparently to the point of condoning retaliation.

Sorry to jump in the middle of your conversation here, I just thought it was relevant to point out.  


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
   http://www.atheists.org

 

 http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html

 

Quote:

The principle of "enlightened self-interest" is an excellent first approximation to an ethical principle which is both consistent with what we know of human nature and is relevant to the problems of life in a complex society. Let us examine this principle.

First we must distinguish between "enlightened" and "unenlightened" self-interest. Let's take an extreme example for illustration. Suppose you lived a totally selfish life of immediate gratification of every desire. Suppose that whenever someone else had something you wanted, you took it for yourself.

It wouldn't be long at all before everyone would be up in arms against you, and you would have to spend all your waking hours fending off reprisals. Depending upon how outrageous your activity had been, you might very well lose your life in an orgy of neighborly revenge. The life of total but unenlightened self-interest might be exciting and pleasant as long as it lasts - but it is not likely to last long.

The person who practices "enlightened" self-interest, by contrast, is the person whose behavioral strategy simultaneously maximizes both the intensity and duration of personal gratification. An enlightened strategy will be one which, when practiced over a long span of time, will generate ever greater amounts and varieties of pleasures and satisfactions.

Thank you American Atheists for giving us an image and philosophy. Thank you for recognizing the villified "sourge mother" as Sapient pretty much said who stood up for atheism when everyone else was against her. 

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
I didn't EVER say i condone

I didn't EVER say i condone retaliation. I said it was HUMAN NATURE. Please reference the following:

It wouldn't be long at all before everyone would be up in arms against you, and you would have to spend all your waking hours fending off reprisals. Depending upon how outrageous your activity had been, you might very well lose your life in an orgy of neighborly revenge. The life of total but unenlightened self-interest might be exciting and pleasant as long as it lasts - but it is not likely to last long. 

- American Atheists - http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html 

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote: I didn't EVER

Drea wrote:

I didn't EVER say i condone retaliation. I said it was HUMAN NATURE.

Human nature is an idea I give no wieght. Human nature is generally a catch phrase that people use as an excuse for action. We decide our action, there is not some mystical force called human nature (at least not that I have ever seen any reasonable defense for) that decides our actions for us.

And on a more specific note, I disagree that you did not condone it. From what I could tell you were more flaunting a threat than you were talking about the mystical human nature.

Quote:
It wouldn't be long at all before everyone would be up in arms against you, and you would have to spend all your waking hours fending off reprisals. Depending upon how outrageous your activity had been, you might very well lose your life in an orgy of neighborly revenge. The life of total but unenlightened self-interest might be exciting and pleasant as long as it lasts - but it is not likely to last long.

- American Atheists - http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html

Good quote, I read it when you posted it earlier. I don't understand why it is being quoted though.  


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Quote: And on a more

Quote:

And on a more specific note, I disagree that you did not condone it. From what I could tell you were more flaunting a threat than you were talking about the mystical human nature.

I don't think i said in any way that i endorse it. Please read back to what I have said. I put it out there because experience and observations show this. If i saw a woman being attacked for trying to get by in life because she has it tough, i'd step in. If someone was acting unethically i'd call them on it however. I know you are testy about this because of your personal experience on the other side but... that's life.

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Sapient, Agreed on your

Sapient,

Agreed on your call that this is not what all atheists believe - she was wrong in making blanket statements about us.  Her point, I believe was not to do this, but to express a philosophy that is logical based on atheism.  I fully agree with the philosophy she expressed in that quote.

Atheism is merely the lack of belief in any gods.  Drea and I agree 100000000% --- but take it a step further and look at the ramifications of atheism.  I wonder if you guys are being somewhat irresponsible with this site and your message.  Intelligence is a responsibility and when you educate humans with knowledge without challenging them with regards to its ethical consequences, you are being irresponsible.  She was expressing a philosophy based on the ethical consequences of atheism.  That's all this message is to me - her philosophy (i agree wholeheartedly its not every atheists).

It seems, and I could be wrong (links?), but you guys are giving people the information but you are not addressing the ethics.  I think educating and giving people a voice is awesome, but it's also a responsibility when you do.  A lot of kids are reading this site and I'm happy to see them announce they are unafraid of invisble sky daddies, but I don't see much addressing the ramifications and responsibilities of that freedom. To depersonalize this a bit with a different example -- You could also educate people in how to construct bombs, but if you do, please tell them why it's wrong to blow people up.

 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote:

Drea wrote:

I won't propose that what i referenced is good for everyone but, it's good enough for me.

That's all that matters, for that purpose the quote is good.

 

Drea wrote:

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/

Sapient, might want to review this before meeting with her. Laughing out loud

I know of it, I've known of it for 8 years. I along with many other atheists who care have tried as often as we could to send nice emails to A.A. and write constructive criticism so they knew just how much damage they were doing with a definition of atheism that had NOTHING to do with atheism. I've had at least 3 friends who have worked for American Atheists quit because they felt as if nobody was listening as they tried to help A.A. correct Madalyns errors behind the scenes and from within.

It's sad that the group known as "American Atheists" doesn't actually represent the overwhelming majority of "American Atheists." I reckon membership would be at least 80% higher were the definition of atheism accurate. That page is why I can't be a member of American Atheists and why I can't name anyone in the top 50 advisors or friends of the Rational Response Squad that is a member of American Atheists as well.  That page is why I can't give $6,000 worth of free advertising to A.A. like I do with the FFRF or Secular.org or the Richard Dawkins Foundation.  I can support their desire to help, and I do... I just think they have some issues that should be worked out.

Here is what atheism is: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html

 

marcusfish wrote:
Drea wrote:

It wouldn't be long at all before everyone would be up in arms against you, and you would have to spend all your waking hours fending off reprisals. Depending upon how outrageous your activity had been, you might very well lose your life in an orgy of neighborly revenge. The life of total but unenlightened self-interest might be exciting and pleasant as long as it lasts - but it is not likely to last long.

- American Atheists - http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html

Good quote, I read it when you posted it earlier. I don't understand why it is being quoted though.

Agreed: good quote.

Agreed: no bearing on thread.

 

 

marcusfish wrote:
Drea wrote:

It wouldn't be long at all before everyone would be up in arms against you, and you would have to spend all your waking hours fending off reprisals. Depending upon how outrageous your activity had been, you might very well lose your life in an orgy of neighborly revenge. The life of total but unenlightened self-interest might be exciting and pleasant as long as it lasts - but it is not likely to last long.

- American Atheists - http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html

Good quote, I read it when you posted it earlier. I don't understand why it is being quoted though.

Agreed: good quote.

Agreed: no bearing on thread.

 

Drea wrote:

If someone was acting unethically i'd call them on it however.

Will you be calling out Madalyn?

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote: I know you are

Drea wrote:
I know you are testy about this because of your personal experience on the other side but... that's life.

Very cute. I'll refrain from joining in this path of discussion as I don't think the mods will appreciate us taking the argument in that direction. 

 


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: I wonder if

Vorax wrote:
I wonder if you guys are being somewhat irresponsible with this site and your message. Intelligence is a responsibility and when you educate humans with knowledge without challenging them with regards to its ethical consequences

Reasonable question. This might be it's own thread, as I find the topic very difficult.

My response to this is that I don't believe in God. I don't believe there was ever a god. In this, I do not believe anyone has ever received their morals from anywhere but the society they are in (environment in general). I realize I am preaching to the choir on this, but that is, in a nutshell, the very point I try to make on this topic. We already have the tools to guide us morally, they have been in place forever. 

However, I do concede that many xians will be baffled by the idea that they are responsible for their own actions. I'm not sure what the solution to that is, as there is no universal truth to morality (so far as I can tell). They have to figure it out on their own. And honestly, chances are, if they are introspective enough to look with skeptical eyes at their own religion, it is likely they will also have the good sense to know that bashing people over the heads with hammers didn't SUDDENLY become reasonable. We still have to live in our society, and I think only a truly crazy person would somehow overlook that fact.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: Agreed on

Vorax wrote:

Agreed on your call that this is not what all atheists believe - she was wrong in making blanket statements about us. Her point, I believe was not to do this, but to express a philosophy that is logical based on atheism. I fully agree with the philosophy she expressed in that quote.

Cool. I wasn't trying to rip on the philosophy of the quote. For the most part the quote represents me, but 13/13 sentences do not represent atheists. You got my point, I got yours.

 

Quote:
Atheism is merely the lack of belief in any gods. Drea and I agree 100000000% --- but take it a step further and look at the ramifications of atheism. I wonder if you guys are being somewhat irresponsible with this site and your message.

This is a whole other world of discussion. But most briefly, I am able to show how theism is not rational, however ethics is something entirelly different. As we can see from this thread ethics aren't always agreed upon even in circles of people where they are similar. Look at this thread. We're similar people yet seem to have a different ethical outlook on the world. Drea for example has problems with women using their looks to further themselves, Kelly and I on the other hand have a problem with women who don't use their looks to further themselves.

However, Drea and I can agree on one thing for sure, and that is that there is less reason to believe in a god than there is to not believe in a god. This is the risk American Atheists have run. By trying to teach ethics they've alienated themselves from millions upon millions of potential allies, donors, and members. This is not something I am interested in doing.  We have more important goals that require us to be united under what we have in common.  We're here to tell you what not to believe in, if you want to determine what you should believe in, don't seek RRS leadership... it's not our forte. 

 

 

Quote:
Intelligence is a responsibility and when you educate humans with knowledge without challenging them with regards to its ethical consequences, you are being irresponsible.

We try to give some guidance in this area, but generally it all boils down to, "do what you think is right."

I think the only ethical standard we can all agree upon is a variant of the golden rule.... "It is wise to not do unto others as you would not want done unto you." That's how far I'm willing to go with a blanket ethical code and even then I might be pushing it. I believe ethics are situational and that is impossible to construct a valid ethical standard that can account for all situations for me to live my life. With this said, I would be irresponsible for peddling my version of ethics on to the world as "rational" (etc).

 

Quote:
It seems, and I could be wrong (links?), but you guys are giving people the information but you are not addressing the ethics. I think educating and giving people a voice is awesome, but it's also a responsibility when you do.

Hopefully I persuaded you in my last paragraph, if I didn't, feel free to call me irresponsible and I'll turn my cheek.

 

Quote:
You could also educate people in how to construct bombs, but if you do, please tell them why it's wrong to blow people up.

We educate people on critical thought and logic, it's up to them to determine how to use it.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote: Vorax

marcusfish wrote:

Vorax wrote:
I wonder if you guys are being somewhat irresponsible with this site and your message. Intelligence is a responsibility and when you educate humans with knowledge without challenging them with regards to its ethical consequences

Reasonable question. This might be it's own thread, as I find the topic very difficult.

My response to this is that I don't believe in God. I don't believe there was ever a god. In this, I do not believe anyone has ever received their morals from anywhere but the society they are in (environment in general). I realize I am preaching to the choir on this, but that is, in a nutshell, the very point I try to make on this topic. We already have the tools to guide us morally, they have been in place forever.

However, I do concede that many xians will be baffled by the idea that they are responsible for their own actions. I'm not sure what the solution to that is, as there is no universal truth to morality (so far as I can tell). They have to figure it out on their own. And honestly, chances are, if they are introspective enough to look with skeptical eyes at their own religion, it is likely they will also have the good sense to know that bashing people over the heads with hammers didn't SUDDENLY become reasonable. We still have to live in our society, and I think only a truly crazy person would somehow overlook that fact.

I did not read this response before I wrote mine.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Vorax

Sapient wrote:
Vorax wrote:

Agreed on your call that this is not what all atheists believe - she was wrong in making blanket statements about us. Her point, I believe was not to do this, but to express a philosophy that is logical based on atheism. I fully agree with the philosophy she expressed in that quote.

Cool. I wasn't trying to rip on the philosophy of the quote. For the most part the quote represents me, but 13/13 sentences do not represent atheists. You got my point, I got yours.

 

Quote:
Atheism is merely the lack of belief in any gods. Drea and I agree 100000000% --- but take it a step further and look at the ramifications of atheism. I wonder if you guys are being somewhat irresponsible with this site and your message.

This is a whole other world of discussion. But most briefly, I am able to show how theism is not rational, however ethics is something entirelly different. As we can see from this thread ethics aren't always agreed upon even in circles of people where they are similar. Look at this thread. We're similar people yet seem to have a different ethical outlook on the world. Drea for example has problems with women using their looks to further themselves, Kelly and I on the other hand have a problem with women who don't use their looks to further themselves.

However, Drea and I can agree on one thing for sure, and that is that there is less reason to believe in a god than there is to not believe in a god. This is the risk American Atheists have run. By trying to teach ethics they've alienated themselves from millions upon millions of potential allies, donors, and members. This is not something I am interested in doing. We have more important goals that require us to be united under what we have in common. We're here to tell you what not to believe in, if you want to determine what you should believe in, don't seek RRS leadership... it's not our forte.

 

 

Quote:
Intelligence is a responsibility and when you educate humans with knowledge without challenging them with regards to its ethical consequences, you are being irresponsible.

We try to give some guidance in this area, but generally it all boils down to, "do what you think is right."

I think the only ethical standard we can all agree upon is a variant of the golden rule.... "It is wise to not do unto others as you would not want done unto you." That's how far I'm willing to go with a blanket ethical code and even then I might be pushing it. I believe ethics are situational and that is impossible to construct a valid ethical standard that can account for all situations for me to live my life. With this said, I would be irresponsible for peddling my version of ethics on to the world as "rational" (etc).

 

Quote:
It seems, and I could be wrong (links?), but you guys are giving people the information but you are not addressing the ethics. I think educating and giving people a voice is awesome, but it's also a responsibility when you do.

Hopefully I persuaded you in my last paragraph, if I didn't, feel free to call me irresponsible and I'll turn my cheek.

 

Quote:
You could also educate people in how to construct bombs, but if you do, please tell them why it's wrong to blow people up.

We educate people on critical thought and logic, it's up to them to determine how to use it.

All fair enough.  I agree ethics are subjective and situational and there is no golden rules. 

I guess if I were in your position I would probably try to challenge people that are new to atheism to think about what it means to live in a world without god - but that's just me.  I wouldn't present them with what I believe are *the* ethics to follow, I would phrase it all more in the form of a question to them and also offer my answers.  I would rather people think and decide for themselves, then blindly follow anything.

Maybe a forum specifically for discussion of non-theistic ethics would be good...maybe there is one already?  Obviously there is lots to talk about based on this thread.

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
I certaintly can identify

I certaintly can identify and relate to everything you said in this last stream Sapient. No one answered me on my question about comparing sexual exploitation to bribery and other things which was really what i kept making this about.

A blanket statement about using looks for advantage doesn't say yes or no to sexually exploiting opportunities that wouldn't otherwise be yours.

THAT is what the problem was. Kelly inferred that beatiful women should out breed the unbeautiful is an opinion she is entitiled to but i'd say is unethical in MY evaluation.

These TWO things that have worked their way into the conversation has been what my problem is. Morals, ethics, whatever.. that's a judgement call. But in think most people would be upset if a person, for sake of arguement, lets call this person "Kelly" tempted with sex when unqualified for a position and stole a job rightfully for them. If they called her on it and she said "not only did i steal you job dude cuz i'm hotter than you, but i hope beautiful people outbreed ugly dorks like you" well...

That's the the point. Right there... people can make their own decision about it.

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain