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


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: Now, go

darth_josh wrote:
Now, go eat a hamburger and think about everything we said.

 

Isn’t eating hamburgers what started this whole mess to begin with? I mean c’mon dude my dog saw your picture and now he doesn’t want to lick his balls anymore. You actually made my dog lose his taste for ball sweat.

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


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

Gauche wrote:

darth_josh wrote:
Now, go eat a hamburger and think about everything we said.

 

Isn’t eating hamburgers what started this whole mess to begin with? I mean c’mon dude my dog saw your picture and now he doesn’t want to lick his balls anymore. You actually made my dog lose his taste for ball sweat.

 

Eating hamburgers is unethical as one doesn't have to take life in order to sustain themselves, pick up a garden burger and think about everything.  Oh... and try not to discriminate between different varieties of burgers based on what the burger looks like or the box looks like.  Personally I think Garden Burger boxes are most attractive, so allow me to advocate the purchase of Boca Burgers instead to "level out the playing field."

 

- 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
Oh, for the record, I am an

Oh, for the record, I am an unethical omnivore.

- 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
Oh c'mon Sapient. It seems

Oh c'mon Sapient.

It seems plain to me that Drea has used her womanly charms to seduce Vorax.

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


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

marcusfish wrote:
Vorax wrote:
We have a winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU GOT IT!!!!

Smiling

Great, an answer, and an honest one!!

I disagree because I don't see it as any different then bribing with cash or threatening, or black mailing, etc. ...BUT THAT"S JUST ME!!!

End of discussion! Great!! Thanks for working to understand the point. I whole heartedly support your right your opinion on this and I respect it.

Thank you! Smiling

Err...your welcome? I'm pretty sure you're just being a smart ass.

 

 

I just dont think its fair that you get to be the winner. Its clearly because you are more masculine looking then me. Cry

 

Skank. Wink


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

AbandonMyPeace wrote:
I just dont think its fair that you get to be the winner. Its clearly because you are more masculine looking then me. Cry

 

Skank. Wink

It's not my fault you fell through the cracks in Hitlers Gene Pool Strategy. Smiling 


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
This whole thread has

This whole thread has gotten slightly retarded, but anywho...

I'm not even going to bother to re-address the "out-breeding" issue. I was very clear that it was a personal position based solely on my desire to have a more aesthetically-pleasing world and I also clarified that it was an opinion so, whatever. Not to mention the fact that intelligence was also included in that opinion. And I so called everybody else ugly dorks and said that they have no right to live. Uh huh.

Anyway, as for the "points" being missed, the point of this thread was never about fucking your boss to get promoted--it was never about using your looks unfairly in a job setting--read the OP. It was about women being "in slavery" to the concept of attractiveness on a MESSAGEBOARD!!!!! Nobody advocated anything other than the rights of attractive women to be attractive and not feel responsible for the "oppression" of less attractive women. After that, it moved onto the so-called ethical standards of Drea and her extrapolation to nature, which has no ethics. If anybody has been straw-manning anybody's position here, it was Drea and Vorax with their switching of the issue from  women being sexy in whatever way they choose and somehow damaging atheism, our boards, our message, whatever, to this cheating people out of jobs by fucking the boss. Blargh. This conversation has gotten stupid and I'm too busy with my REAL job of unfairly using my looks and sexuality to cheat unsuspecting men out of their hard-earned cash. Maybe Drea would rather support me and pay my bills so that I don't have to continue living in such an unethical manner.


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote:

kellym78 wrote:

This whole thread has gotten slightly retarded, but anywho...

I'm not even going to bother to re-address the "out-breeding" issue. I was very clear that it was a personal position based solely on my desire to have a more aesthetically-pleasing world and I also clarified that it was an opinion so, whatever. Not to mention the fact that intelligence was also included in that opinion. And I so called everybody else ugly dorks and said that they have no right to live. Uh huh.

Anyway, as for the "points" being missed, the point of this thread was never about fucking your boss to get promoted--it was never about using your looks unfairly in a job setting--read the OP. It was about women being "in slavery" to the concept of attractiveness on a MESSAGEBOARD!!!!! Nobody advocated anything other than the rights of attractive women to be attractive and not feel responsible for the "oppression" of less attractive women. After that, it moved onto the so-called ethical standards of Drea and her extrapolation to nature, which has no ethics. If anybody has been straw-manning anybody's position here, it was Drea and Vorax with their switching of the issue from women being sexy in whatever way they choose and somehow damaging atheism, our boards, our message, whatever, to this cheating people out of jobs by fucking the boss. Blargh. This conversation has gotten stupid and I'm too busy with my REAL job of unfairly using my looks and sexuality to cheat unsuspecting men out of their hard-earned cash. Maybe Drea would rather support me and pay my bills so that I don't have to continue living in such an unethical manner.

Yes it has gotten stupid - it got stupid at page 3 when Drea basically conceeded her original point and brought up another and from there straw men started appearing everywhere because, in my estimation, people were still stuck on her original post.

She conceeded that the original point was her opinion and you and others were justified in yours. She agreed to disagree. From there, she brought up a perfectly valid ethical discussion on women using sexuality to get ahead and regardless of what you think, this was what the last 4 pages of this discussion was about and she was dealing with strawmen at ever post. The only one that objectively seemed to read the points was Marcusfish and he was the only one that answered her question on the topic.

Did she take offense to your point about smart beutiful people should be the ones that get the world. (Paraphrasing, you made your point clearly). Yup - she did. I do to. I'm unsure if you are aware or not aware, but that view has a name - it's called Eugenics and it puts you in some great company... one of them being a fellow name Adolf Hitler. Please read up on it and think about what it can (and has) lead to in the wrong hands...who is the right hands for such an idea?

I'm not trying to offend you, I'm just pointing out what happend to this discussion and what Drea took issue with about your post.

"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.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: kellym78

Vorax wrote:
kellym78 wrote:

This whole thread has gotten slightly retarded, but anywho...

I'm not even going to bother to re-address the "out-breeding" issue. I was very clear that it was a personal position based solely on my desire to have a more aesthetically-pleasing world and I also clarified that it was an opinion so, whatever. Not to mention the fact that intelligence was also included in that opinion. And I so called everybody else ugly dorks and said that they have no right to live. Uh huh.

Anyway, as for the "points" being missed, the point of this thread was never about fucking your boss to get promoted--it was never about using your looks unfairly in a job setting--read the OP. It was about women being "in slavery" to the concept of attractiveness on a MESSAGEBOARD!!!!! Nobody advocated anything other than the rights of attractive women to be attractive and not feel responsible for the "oppression" of less attractive women. After that, it moved onto the so-called ethical standards of Drea and her extrapolation to nature, which has no ethics. If anybody has been straw-manning anybody's position here, it was Drea and Vorax with their switching of the issue from women being sexy in whatever way they choose and somehow damaging atheism, our boards, our message, whatever, to this cheating people out of jobs by fucking the boss. Blargh. This conversation has gotten stupid and I'm too busy with my REAL job of unfairly using my looks and sexuality to cheat unsuspecting men out of their hard-earned cash. Maybe Drea would rather support me and pay my bills so that I don't have to continue living in such an unethical manner.

Yes it has gotten stupid - it got stupid at page 3 when Drea basically conceeded her original point and brought up another and from there straw men started appearing everywhere because, in my estimation, people were still stuck on her original post.

She conceeded that the original point was her opinion and you and others were justified in yours. She agreed to disagree. From there, she brought up a perfectly valid ethical discussion on women using sexuality to get ahead and regardless of what you think, this was what the last 4 pages of this discussion was about and she was dealing with strawmen at ever post. The only one that objectively seemed to read the points was Marcusfish and he was the only one that answered her question on the topic.

Did she take offense to your point about smart beutiful people should be the ones that get the world. (Paraphrasing, you made your point clearly). Yup - she did. I do to. I'm unsure if you are aware or not aware, but that view has a name - it's called Eugenics and it puts you in some great company... one of them being a fellow name Adolf Hitler. Please read up on it and think about what it can (and has) lead to in the wrong hands...who is the right hands for such an idea?

I'm not trying to offend you, I'm just pointing out what happend to this discussion and what Drea took issue with about your post.

The smart, pretty people don't have to be given the world, nature takes care of that for them. I don't recall anyone suggesting anything about eugenics - that's simply fucking ridiculous.

 The point was simply made that, guess what, smart, attractive people tend to get their choice of mates and are given advantages unsmart, less attractive people don't get - big fucking surprise.

There is no should or shouldn't about it - that's just the way it is. Nature DOES play favorites, get over it.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

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


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
My observations lead me to

My observations lead me to believe that the very successful beautiful smart men and women don't reproduce as much as the less so.

Wonder who's gonna be outbred. 

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
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

The smart, pretty people don't have to be given the world, nature takes care of that for them. I don't recall anyone suggesting anything about eugenics - that's simply fucking ridiculous.

Is it?  Eugenics is just the idea that we should promote the "better" among us to be the ones that propigate the speices.

kelly78 wrote:

Do I wish that intelligent, attractive people would out-breed everybody else--yes. And I'm not at all ashamed to admit that. Fortunately, though, I don't expect everybody to share my opinion.

Define who is more "intelligent" and who is more "attractive" - does the species agree wit you?  I doubt it.  I have a mensa level IQ, I've been called very attractive. I guess I should win the genetic race right?  WRONG.  What should win is what will ensure the survival of the species, the propegation of our DNA, not what you, I  or anyone else thinks is "Attractive" or "Intelligent".  For all you or I know, small people with dark skin and moderate intelligence may be the best people to inherit the earth.  I'm not here to do that, that's the job of "Natural Selection" (research the theory, it's not anything to do with what is attractive esthetically, it's a about what can survive in the environment and what does).

That's the problem. Eugenics is a simple idea that the "better" should be the ones that out-breed everyone else because this will make the world population stronger.  Last time I checked what is "better" is subjective, attractive is subjective.  Even intelligence is subjective in various ways.

Quote:

The point was simply made that, guess what, smart, attractive people tend to get their choice of mates and are given advantages unsmart, less attractive people don't get - big fucking surprise.

That point is not in dispute - what Drea took offense to was Kellys preferance.  Ask a holocust victim what they think of Kelly's opinion...you might find Drea reacted quite mildly.

Quote:
There is no should or shouldn't about it - that's just the way it is. Nature DOES play favorites, get over it.

BINGO..now get over it. 

"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
I dont see what Kelly's

I dont see what Kelly's personal opinion has to do with the holocaust.


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

AbandonMyPeace wrote:
I dont see what Kelly's personal opinion has to do with the holocaust.

Her opinion was shared by Hitler - it's a very dangerous philosophy. Hitler thought blue-eyed, blondes (who he thought were the most attractive people), should inherit the earth.

I'm not saying Kelly would do anything that Hitler did - but Kelly isn't in power and Kelly isn't crazy - put that opinion in George Bush's head...still feel good abou it? See any dangers yet?

"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
Hmm..Well I guess it could

Hmm..Well I guess it could be dangerous in the wrong hands. But I guess that also means that any personal opinion anyone would have could be dangerous in the wrong hands. We should do away with opinions and just tell everyone what to think....I guess...


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
If i might be so bold as to

If i might be so bold as to make an opinion, society generally sides with majority. Majority of votes for one thing or another. The Democratic system where everyone is equal and with enough people putting out their opinions, you get a sense of what the majority wants. A dangerous person like hitler who listens to no one and other people have no power is VERY dangerous. Empowering many people to build opinions by proper education and observations will make society. that's the beauty of democracy, it's not one person that does it, they are accountable to a majority of opinions.

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
Vorax

Vorax wrote:

AbandonMyPeace wrote:
I dont see what Kelly's personal opinion has to do with the holocaust.

Her opinion was shared by Hitler - it's a very dangerous philosophy. Hitler thought blue-eyed, blondes (who he thought were the most attractive people), should inherit the earth.

I'm not saying Kelly would do anything that Hitler did - but Kelly isn't in power and Kelly isn't crazy - put that opinion in George Bush's head...still feel good abou it? See any dangers yet?

I don't know man, I saw the whole Hitler thing hit and it immediately sounded odd to me.

I'm sure there are many people that would rather have pretty and intelligent folks shagging than to think that the dumb asses in the supermarket with the screaming kids are making more dumbasses. I am one of those people.

Hitler thought it would be better if pretty and intelligent people should be the ones doing the shagging? Ok. If we take out the fact that Hitler was ALSO a meglamaniac who tried to murder off and entire people because he was psychotic then I'll buy the comparison between him and Kelly. I'm sure Hitler had lots of ideas. If I share any of those ideas does that mean you should compare my ideologies to him? I guess, but that's pretty fricken thin man. 

He took his idea too far? Well hell fuck yes he did. Kelly expressed an opinion and was compared to Hitler for it. If the person who posted that wasn't trying to get a rise out of the situation then perhaps they should have thought of that before they related an offhand opinion to arguably the worlds worst villain.

To be clear: what I am saying is that if Hitler (I actually don't know much about him) thought the pretty and intelligent people should be the ones doing the shagging I don't see what the problem is with that. He had an opinion you don't like? And? What WAS the problem with Hitler is that he was psychotic.

I don't know if I'm actually narrowing down on the point, I just think that the comparison to Hitler was merely put out there to get someone aggitated. 


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote: If i might be

Drea wrote:
If i might be so bold as to make an opinion, society generally sides with majority. Majority of votes for one thing or another. The Democratic system where everyone is equal and with enough people putting out their opinions, you get a sense of what the majority wants. A dangerous person like hitler who listens to no one and other people have no power is VERY dangerous. Empowering many people to build opinions by proper education and observations will make society. that's the beauty of democracy, it's not one person that does it, they are accountable to a majority of opinions.

I agree, I also like democracy.

I'm not sure how this relates to what we're talking about. Can you clarify the connection? 


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Marcus If you take offence

Marcus

If you take offence to me making that comparason, i'd invite you to look up Eugenics on Wikipedia using the link that Vorax left a few messages back. They have Alexander Graham Bell in the same line as Adolf Hitler. They made a connection in the thoughts, not the actions of the person. I made no reference in any way to what she would DO, i simply made a connection with what i thought was a very obivious example of a similar idea and the majority of people being against 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


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

AbandonMyPeace wrote:
Hmm..Well I guess it could be dangerous in the wrong hands. But I guess that also means that any personal opinion anyone would have could be dangerous in the wrong hands. We should do away with opinions and just tell everyone what to think....I guess...

Yes any dangerous opinion in the wrong hand is a bad idea. That doesn't mean we should do away with opinions, it just means we should stand up and speak (as Drea did) when we feel someones opinion is dangerous or unethical.  My guess, Kelly hasn't thought throught the full ramifications of her opinion. 

The general litmus test is to ask yourself: Am I ok with everyone having this opinion?  If you aren't, you probably have a case of a dangerous or unethical idea. 

Example: I am perfectly ok with evryone having the opinion we should not kill babies - I am not ok with everyone having the opinion that the smart and beautiful people should out-breed the rest.

"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
To clarify my statement

To clarify my statement Marcus

Quote:
Abandon said: Hmm..Well I guess it could be dangerous in the wrong hands. But I guess that also means that any personal opinion anyone would have could be dangerous in the wrong hands. We should do away with opinions and just tell everyone what to think....I guess...

To which i didn't clearly state i was responding to but the message was meant to respond to was

Quote:
If i might be so bold as to make an opinion, society generally sides with majority. Majority of votes for one thing or another. The Democratic system where everyone is equal and with enough people putting out their opinions, you get a sense of what the majority wants. A dangerous person like hitler who listens to no one and other people have no power is VERY dangerous. Empowering many people to build opinions by proper education and observations will make society. that's the beauty of democracy, it's not one person that does it, they are accountable to a majority of opinions.

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
marcusfish wrote:

marcusfish wrote:

To be clear: what I am saying is that if Hitler (I actually don't know much about him) thought the pretty and intelligent people should be the ones doing the shagging I don't see what the problem is with that. He had an opinion you don't like? And? What WAS the problem with Hitler is that he was psychotic.

I can only suggest you look up more on what he did as the next steps with that idea. He tried to implement it - he used the jews as an example of those who were disqualified geneticaly as inferear. He was a racist. With his power and insanity he was in a position to actually try to create a world where only these blue-eyed, blondes would be able to breed.

Quote:

I don't know if I'm actually narrowing down on the point, I just think that the comparison to Hitler was merely put out there to get someone aggitated.

I can understand that, but it's not. She did share one of his opinions and that was called. Hitler wasn't the only one who had this idea, but is the one who undeniably illustrated why it is a dangerous one.

 

For the record, I think Kelly is very bright and seems to be a wonderful and caring person - she is trying to stop irrational thinking and I think that's awesome. This wasn't an attack on her, it was an attack on her opinion. Just as the RRS is not attacking christians or jews, the RRS is attacking the irrational ideas they support - Drea and I are only doing the same here.

"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
Maybe we should save the

Maybe we should save the standing up and speaking part for when there is an actual issue. I only am attracted to  women I find attractive is some way or another. I however do not wish to find women I dont find attractive and punch them in the face. See my opinion is not dangerous. There are no ramifications of Kelly's opinion because Kelly has not been violent about her opinion. So also she is not a threat to anyone.

Am I ok with people having there opinions? Of course I am. If its someones opinion that Im not attractive then they may have bruised my ego a bit but I will get through it.  If it is someones opinion that I should be stabbed because Im not attractive to them then that individual person is obviously a problem. But I cant say that everyone that shares that opinion is a threat to my safety.

Its not my place to decide how people think. If there is violence because of what they think then action needs to be taken immediatly. But until a person causes a problem they should not be considered a problem.  


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

AbandonMyPeace wrote:

Maybe we should save the standing up and speaking part for when there is an actual issue. I only am attracted to women I find attractive is some way or another. I however do not wish to find women I dont find attractive and punch them in the face. See my opinion is not dangerous. There are no ramifications of Kelly's opinion because Kelly has not been violent about her opinion. So also she is not a threat to anyone.

Am I ok with people having there opinions? Of course I am. If its someones opinion that Im not attractive then they may have bruised my ego a bit but I will get through it. If it is someones opinion that I should be stabbed because Im not attractive to them then that individual person is obviously a problem. But I cant say that everyone that shares that opinion is a threat to my safety.

Its not my place to decide how people think. If there is violence because of what they think then action needs to be taken immediatly. But until a person causes a problem they should not be considered a problem.

I agree mostly, but I do feel obligated to educate them about the dangers of their opininos...just as the RRS is doing with this entire site. 

"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
The dangers of religion is

The dangers of religion is completely different then the dangers of someone not finding someone else attractive.


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

AbandonMyPeace wrote:
The dangers of religion is completely different then the dangers of someone not finding someone else attractive.

That's strawmaning again - please go back to the kelly quote. 

"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
No matter how many times I

No matter how many times I read it I dont see where she suggests we burn unattractive people because they dont look like us. Feel free to quote the part where Kelly suggested we use violence.


ajay333
Theist
ajay333's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
TO: Any 'professing atheist'

Mod edit -  removed spam


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
AbandonMyPeace wrote: No

AbandonMyPeace wrote:
No matter how many times I read it I dont see where she suggests we burn unattractive people because they dont look like us. Feel free to quote the part where Kelly suggested we use violence.

Sorry, but I think this is necessary because this has happend WAY to many times during this thread and I have resolved myself to not allow it any more - when I see it I will call it. 

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search This article is about the logical fallacy. For other uses, see Straw man (disambiguation).

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

 

We never said kelly condoned violence this is not our point or position.  I will not state the point again, it was stated several times and if you re-read the last two pages you will find it, probably more then once.

"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.


satchalen
satchalen's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Empowering many

Quote:
Empowering many people to build opinions by proper education and observations will make society. that's the beauty of democracy, it's not one person that does it, they are accountable to a majority of opinions.
i am also a very big fan of democracy, but it has a terrible failing, which is that most people don't know what the fuck they're voting on. i hope you don't mind me assuming that you're smarter than most people, and i hope you don't mind me saying that i am as well; every election scares the hell out of me because i know that my fate lies in the hands of people far less knowledgeable than myself. your statement "that everyone is equal" is incontrovertibly incorrect. everyone is not equal. we may try to treat everybody with the same amount of respect, but we are not all equal.

i see this as your complaint: you consider yourself unequal, you think you are treated as a woman first and as a human being second. you think that people flaunting their looks damage your cause. you have failed to look at their perspective, and indeed your own, for you have grossly undermined your own cause far worse than any photo.

first, you wish everybody to be equal. kurt vonnegut addressed this far better than i possibly could in his short story harrison bergeron. some may call it a slippery slope story, but i think it a pretty accurate representation of the end result of equalization logic.

second, has it not occurred to you that pretty people need to eat too? it may be that the woman at the job interview knows she doesn't have the same skills or intellect as you, and so she uses whatever weaponry she has at her disposal to assure her well-being. i personally don't think sex is an ugly thing, and so i don't think *lesser* of that woman for her efforts. i do think, though, that if the credentials she's offering (nice tatas as opposed to a degree) do not relate to the position she's applying for (no pun intended) then the hiring manager would be a dumbfuck for hiring her anyway. (contrary to vorax's statement that the qualified people would then be out of a job; more likely the qualified people would go work for another company who would then place the speciously-staffed company out of their jobs; laissez faire has its advantages).

third, if you are as attractive as you think you are, and as intelligent as you think you are, then you would know that reality is not subjective -opinions are.  what that means is that it doesn't matter whether or not you are as attractive as the woman in the op photo, or kelly, or tyra banks, or even me.  your preposterous statement is a direct insult to somebody like oprah winfrey, who is not nearly as attractive as tyra banks, but wildly more successful.  it is a direct insult to cate blanchett, who is not nearly as attractive as jessica simpson, but a definitevly better actress.  i consider blanchett far more beautiful than simpson, and thus you have directly insulted me as well, for assuming that i am so ridiculously animalistic that i cannot judge a woman on anything other than her tatas.  fyvm.

fwiw, i concur with you fully that offering sex to a hiring manager is a bribe. i completely disagree that sex is dirty, and i would rather see more tatas on tv than explosions. furthermore, it's nice to know that female atheists (generally considered outcasts and brain-freaks and therefore unattractive, by way of stereotyping) can be attractive. it's very heartening for us male atheists, see, since males are instinctively programmed to pick their mates based on visual evidence of their potential partners' fertility.

finally, i think you are being ridiculous in response to kelly's statement. i, too, would like to see a world of beautiful people, in mind, body and spirit.  i want all people to look and feel beautiful, to think and act intelligently. you consider this a bad thing, which de facto means that you want some people to be uglier than you. i know that's not what you said nor what you think you meant, but that is the final arrival of your logic. neither myself nor kelly nor anybody else on this site is suggesting anything even remotely resembling eugenics, and that you've brought it up shows that you are now thrashing in the woes of defeat, rather than opening up your mind and considering that you might be wrong not only in your OP, but in your general mindset on this matter altogether. 

and yet you claim to argue on behalf of dignity.

aside from harrison bergeron, i might also recommend stranger in a strange land.

if (born++) {truth=null};


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote: To which i

Drea wrote:
To which i didn't clearly state i was responding to but the message was meant to respond to was

Gotcha, thanks. I think he was being sarcastic, that's probably why I didn't catch the reference.  


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Sure you have said

Sure you have said repeatedly that you dont think Kelly is violent. Only to follow it up with stuff like if another person with more power has the same opinion then it will result in violence. Hitler is not a good example of how opinions turn in to madness. He was a mad man regardless. It wasnt one opinion in his head that made him like that. It was all of them.

If you dont think I should be talking about the point that was made that kelly's thought is similar to hitler then maybe that part of the argument should have been left out. You guys wonder why everyone is so damn confused on this post its because you want to make your arguments and then pick and choose which ones are up for debate.

This whole damn thing is getting ridiculous.  Life isnt always fair and making up excuses that you didnt get a job because someone else is more attractive then you is just an excuse. We dont absolutely know this to be fact.

Im going out for a smoke. You two are making me dizzy.


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

marcusfish wrote:

Drea wrote:
To which i didn't clearly state i was responding to but the message was meant to respond to was

Gotcha, thanks. I think he was being sarcastic, that's probably why I didn't catch the reference.

LOL..just saw your sig! 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.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote: If you take

Drea wrote:
If you take offence to me making that comparason, i'd invite you to look up Eugenics on Wikipedia using the link that Vorax left a few messages back.

 Ok, I read up a bit on Eugenics. That's pretty scary stuff. The idea that we can / should make people "better" is obviously a slippery slope (as Vorax pointed out earlier). Not only is the question of "what is better" an unanswerable, the question of "how do we do it" is terrifying. From what I can tell this Eugenics thing is about figuring out new and horrific ways to get peolple to fit a particular mold. 

I don't want to spin out into a scemantic debate, but I do think it should be stated that if it is the implemintation part which gives Eugenics its name we should make the distinction. 

Quote:
They made a connection in the thoughts, not the actions of the person.

I dig that, but I do think that the distinction is quite relevant. I imagine there are other ideas that I personally find dangerous but I don't see the relevance. Using our current example, Hitler wasn't a psychopath because he had the opinion, he was a psychopath because of his actions. 

Vorax said that dangerous ideas are allways bad news in the hands of crazy assholes (paraphrase) which I dig. But I keep bouncing back to the fact that the only thing that makes the idea dangerous is what people would do with it. Using an idea, any idea, as an excuse to hurt other people is bad (my personal ethics). While we can connect probably anyone with anyone else in regard to ideology, I think it is flimsy and pointless if we are ignoring their application of said ideas.  

Quote:
i simply made a connection with what i thought was a very obivious example of a similar idea and the majority of people being against it.

I really do understand. But I still see that people are disagreeing with murder and violence...not the ideas which they use to describe or excuse their actions.

 


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: LOL..just saw

Vorax wrote:
LOL..just saw your sig! Smiling

Oh hells yeah. You can't buy comedy like that man, not at any price.  


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

marcusfish wrote:

I don't want to spin out into a scemantic debate, but I do think it should be stated that if it is the implemintation part which gives Eugenics its name we should make the distinction.

eu·gen·ics ʒɛnɪks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[yoo-jen-iks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun (used with a singular verb) the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

 

Quote:
I dig that, but I do think that the distinction is quite relevant. I imagine there are other ideas that I personally find dangerous but I don't see the relevance. Using our current example, Hitler wasn't a psychopath because he had the opinion, he was a psychopath because of his actions.

IMHO, his opinion was a dangerous one because to realize the opinion (take action on it), is unethical.

Quote:
Vorax said that dangerous ideas are allways bad news in the hands of crazy assholes (paraphrase) which I dig. But I keep bouncing back to the fact that the only thing that makes the idea dangerous is what people would do with it. Using an idea, any idea, as an excuse to hurt other people is bad (my personal ethics). While we can connect probably anyone with anyone else in regard to ideology, I think it is flimsy and pointless if we are ignoring their application of said ideas.

Some would argue eugenics is not immoral becuase there may be ways to encourage it without being violent (positive eugenics) - I personally disagree with all forms of it from an ethics standpoint.

The idea of eugenics has been explored in many ways - there is a good movie called "Gattaca" which is a sci-fi that shows a society where the idea is promoted by gene evaluation at birth, they don't kill babies who aren't genetically up to snuff, but the movie explores what a society like that might be like where the general population is down with the idea that some are "better" then others because of their attributes and how some will attempt to discriminate or manipulate because of it - very good watch...tons of other books and stories dealing with eugenics as well.

"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
satchalen

satchalen wrote:

Quote:
Empowering many people to build opinions by proper education and observations will make society. that's the beauty of democracy, it's not one person that does it, they are accountable to a majority of opinions.
i am also a very big fan of democracy, but it has a terrible failing, which is that most people don't know what the fuck they're voting on. i hope you don't mind me assuming that you're smarter than most people, and i hope you don't mind me saying that i am as well; every election scares the hell out of me because i know that my fate lies in the hands of people far less knowledgeable than myself. your statement "that everyone is equal" is incontrovertibly incorrect. everyone is not equal. we may try to treat everybody with the same amount of respect, but we are not all equal.

(i'm not disregarding the rest of what you said, it just fills up too much space and people can look above anyhow)

I respect your opinion, and while i wanted to respond right away, i went to your introduction and read the entire thing because you raised interesting views and i wanted a background perspetive on you to understand where it was coming from. I think considering the research you have done and why you don't agree with opinions or "i believe" statements warrants that I choose not to say anything and ask if you have read the entire thread in it's whole.

If you have, then i accept that you don't agree with me. If you haven't please do read and then i'll accept that you don't agree with me.

FYI, Smashing Pumpkins is one of my Fav bands by far, i even have a poetry book by Billy Corgan which... well, i prefer his song writing much more. I saw them in concert when i was 17 and to this day it was one of the most entrancing concerts i have been to. I truly believe that man is next to godliness.

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


satchalen
satchalen's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
so you dig the punkins, are

so you dig the punkins, are an atheist, and a techie, and married to the same?  w00t, that's 4 things we have in common!  but alas,  i don't think billy is anywhere near godly; i think he's a kink-necked tool what happens to be a fucking outstanding musician, whereas my wife is more inclined to agree with you.  meh.  damn women always objectify us poor men.  Eye-wink

admittedly, i haven't read the entire thread.  i could barely sit through atlas shrugged, and i think this thread has already bested it by a couple of john galt speeches.  i have read quite a bit of it though, and i see where you're coming from, how you've stuck to your guns while trying to present an open mind, how you tried to remain calm and address the issue logically, and how you also tried to see the humor where it came.  i think you failed in most of these "tried"s, though, and i still think you're off your fuckin rocker.

you came right out and said "i won't concede i'm wrong".  i can say nothing more convincing of your own error in logic than that sentence.  i think it was sagan that said something along the lines of experimenting with the express purpose of not proving an idea right, but instead proving it wrong; he would make every possible attempt he could think of to disprove himself before making any proclamations of proof.  this worked threefold:

1) it would mitigate any predispositions he had to his own theories

2) he would already have the answers to those who attempt to disprove him afterward, for he had already travelled that road

3) if he ruled out all possiblities of disproof, he could assume that he had indeed proven it, and THEN work to that goal with all that he had learned in the process

here is an example of the primo humanist utilizing primo objectivism.

 

all that said, i am glad that we have so much in common, for man is a social animal.  i am sorry that we disagree on this point however, and that you are unable to understand (as vorax put it) why we are not troubled by amanda's picture, why we (or perhaps i should say i and not presume to speak for others) might be insulted by what you are suggesting, and why the eugenics statement is comically absurd.  but you won't concede, and that is to your own detriment; you said you were going to drop the thread a dozen times and didn't, and here we are. 

you are too invested to be objective. 

(if you say "but vorax disagrees with me and it is not affecting our relationship, so i'm obviously not *that* invested!", i tell you that vorax is a smart man; all intelligent men live in healthy fear of their wives, for myriad reasons, the likes of many which you have espoused here.  he disagrees with you only because you gave him permission to do so.  i know this because i am happily married for 13 years, and i too am a smart man.)

vorax, you need to recant the eugenics gig.   drea, you need to read less humanism and more objectivism (egad, i can't believe i'm saying that, rand being about the most distasteful image of woman i can think of...) 

and i need to get a copy of corgan's book.  what's it called and where'd you find it?

if (born++) {truth=null};


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

Vorax wrote:
marcusfish wrote:

I don't want to spin out into a scemantic debate, but I do think it should be stated that if it is the implemintation part which gives Eugenics its name we should make the distinction.

eu·gen·ics ʒɛnɪks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[yoo-jen-iks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun (used with a singular verb) the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

Gotcha, the definition presented in Wiki gave a slant toward 'action'. No biggie, so long as we're using the same definition it doesn't matter. I'll go with this one also. 

Quote:
Quote:
I dig that, but I do think that the distinction is quite relevant. I imagine there are other ideas that I personally find dangerous but I don't see the relevance. Using our current example, Hitler wasn't a psychopath because he had the opinion, he was a psychopath because of his actions.

IMHO, his opinion was a dangerous one because to realize the opinion (take action on it), is unethical.

I think I've got what you're saying. If acting on the thought would be unethical then the thought itself, even if not acted upon, is unethical by default? 

Quote:
Quote:
Vorax said that dangerous ideas are allways bad news in the hands of crazy assholes (paraphrase) which I dig. But I keep bouncing back to the fact that the only thing that makes the idea dangerous is what people would do with it. Using an idea, any idea, as an excuse to hurt other people is bad (my personal ethics). While we can connect probably anyone with anyone else in regard to ideology, I think it is flimsy and pointless if we are ignoring their application of said ideas.

Some would argue eugenics is not immoral becuase there may be ways to encourage it without being violent (positive eugenics) - I personally disagree with all forms of it from an ethics standpoint.

Because to do so one would need to decide on which form of humanity is better and would thereby assume that all others are inferior? I can see that, on the theory side. I think that once it is moved into the action phase though it becomes fascism or even totalitarianism. And those guys can suck a nut. 

Quote:
The idea of eugenics has been explored in many ways - there is a good movie called "Gattaca" which is a sci-fi that shows a society where the idea is promoted by gene evaluation at birth, they don't kill babies who aren't genetically up to snuff, but the movie explores what a society like that might be like where the general population is down with the idea that some are "better" then others because of their attributes and how some will attempt to discriminate or manipulate because of it - very good watch...tons of other books and stories dealing with eugenics as well.

Loves the Gattica action. Brave New World is another social commentary on the idea. Loved em' both. The idea of the perfect society is absolutely fascinating. I believe that (at least with Brave New World) the topic comes from fear of totalitarianism and it's a comment on what might happen if the govt or those in power take it upon themselves to decide for the rest of us what we should / must be like.

It's a pretty fine line that we're arguing, to the point where I'm not sure we're even arguing different points :p 


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
satchalen wrote: vorax, you

satchalen wrote:
vorax, you need to recant the eugenics gig.

Kelly holds a eugenic philosophy regarding humanity - this has been established based on her own words and by her not recanting her words.  I'm not here to hold peoples hands, or sugar coat their beliefs, I'm here to challenge them to think rationally and in this instance, I don't think you or her have thought this through.  Read the last two pages if you haven't already - feel free to challenge me on any point I mentioned regarding eugenics.

If someone said they hoped white people would out-breed everyone else, you might better understand why eugenics is dangerous and why I feel no obligation to sugar coat the problems I have with her opinion.

I ask you  - Why should I recant? 

"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
satchalen wrote: so you

satchalen wrote:

so you dig the punkins, are an atheist, and a techie, and married to the same? w00t, that's 4 things we have in common! but alas, i don't think billy is anywhere near godly; i think he's a kink-necked tool what happens to be a fucking outstanding musician, whereas my wife is more inclined to agree with you. meh. damn women always objectify us poor men. Eye-wink

LOL!! I love my geeky, smart-ass, brilliant man with everything i am  Laughing out loud I'd disagree with anyone who would say he's not the perfect match for me. Corgan, he's got nothing on my man and i'd disagree with anyone who says otherwise. I openly objectify my guy.

Quote:
 

admittedly, i haven't read the entire thread. i could barely sit through atlas shrugged, and i think this thread has already bested it by a couple of john galt speeches. i have read quite a bit of it though, and i see where you're coming from, how you've stuck to your guns while trying to present an open mind, how you tried to remain calm and address the issue logically, and how you also tried to see the humor where it came. i think you failed in most of these "tried"s, though, and i still think you're off your fuckin rocker.

Thanks man, i can take it and you totally made me laugh. I love that kind of honesty, i don't take it as disrespect, I take it as a great adjective and i was grinning like mad when i saw it. 

Quote:
 

you came right out and said "i won't concede i'm wrong". i can say nothing more convincing of your own error in logic than that sentence.

Very good. You are absolutely right, it was a statement of blindness and i admit, as i admitted elsewhere, i was getting testy and in a rational debate, there is no need for testy. This was also something unnecessary and i'm glad you pointed it out in a frank manner.

Quote:
 

i think it was sagan that said something along the lines of experimenting with the express purpose of not proving an idea right, but instead proving it wrong; he would make every possible attempt he could think of to disprove himself before making any proclamations of proof. this worked threefold:

1) it would mitigate any predispositions he had to his own theories

2) he would already have the answers to those who attempt to disprove him afterward, for he had already travelled that road

3) if he ruled out all possiblities of disproof, he could assume that he had indeed proven it, and THEN work to that goal with all that he had learned in the process

That is a fantastic matrix to evaluate against. It will also make for an interesting discussing for Vorax and I tonight. I'd be very curious to know based on this matrix if i would change my stance however it's worth a shot and i'm very curious of the outcome.

Quote:
 

here is an example of the primo humanist utilizing primo objectivism.

 

all that said, i am glad that we have so much in common, for man is a social animal. i am sorry that we disagree on this point however, and that you are unable to understand (as vorax put it) why we are not troubled by amanda's picture, why we (or perhaps i should say i and not presume to speak for others) might be insulted by what you are suggesting, and why the eugenics statement is comically absurd. but you won't concede, and that is to your own detriment; you said you were going to drop the thread a dozen times and didn't, and here we are.

you are too invested to be objective.

you are right, i am invested, it's something i feel passionately about through my observations with other people and experiences. While i might not have remained objective, i don't identify personally with the lines of thought here, and while i will try to evaluate them based on the proposed matrix, i still feel very strongly about them. In truth, my bias could possiby cloud the outcome of that matrix and it could be right to say that i'd have a flaw in the stance i make. However, it's my life bane then, and while i hope i can see past it and overcome it to have true clarity, i can't say i will be able to with 100% success. You'll have to forgive my weaknesses if it pleases you to do so.

Quote:
 

(if you say "but vorax disagrees with me and it is not affecting our relationship, so i'm obviously not *that* invested!", i tell you that vorax is a smart man; all intelligent men live in healthy fear of their wives, for myriad reasons, the likes of many which you have espoused here. he disagrees with you only because you gave him permission to do so. i know this because i am happily married for 13 years, and i too am a smart man.)

I divorced the last man i was with because i didn't share his views that beating me was wrong. Divorce isn't hard, Vorax is divorced too... we both know that if we don't like what another person says, you have the option of leaving them. If i disagreed i have to option of leaving, but i respect him and i don't. 

Quote:
 

vorax, you need to recant the eugenics gig. drea, you need to read less humanism and more objectivism (egad, i can't believe i'm saying that, rand being about the most distasteful image of woman i can think of...)

and i need to get a copy of corgan's book. what's it called and where'd you find it?

It's called Billy Corgan - blinking with fists ISBN 0-571-21189-5

Recanting is up to Vorax. please note, i'm not a humanist, but i've seen girls cry at the degradation pretty girls have given them to grow up with out any self esteem and my heart broke for them. People might call these women weak but... it's people like me that just want to hug them. That does cloud my view, it sure does. Honestly, i don't want to look so objectively at the world that i close off my heart to people who are hurt by actions others take.

It would to say i can distance myself enough to be entirely objective and on that point, i concede to the fact that i am too invested in this to remain rational. 

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
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Vorax wrote:

I'm unsure if you are aware or not aware, but that view has a name - it's called Eugenics and it puts you in some great company... one of them being a fellow name Adolf Hitler.

I don't recall anyone suggesting anything about eugenics - that's simply fucking ridiculous.

"Fucking ridiculous" were the exact same words that came out of my mouth and Kellys when we saw that point.   

- 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

Sapient wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Vorax wrote:

I'm unsure if you are aware or not aware, but that view has a name - it's called Eugenics and it puts you in some great company... one of them being a fellow name Adolf Hitler.

I don't recall anyone suggesting anything about eugenics - that's simply fucking ridiculous.

"Fucking ridiculous" were the exact same words that came out of my mouth and Kellys when we saw that point.

Many christians think their opinion about god is rational too, please read the rest of the posts as well. 

"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: That point is

Vorax wrote:

That point is not in dispute - what Drea took offense to was Kellys preferance. Ask a holocust victim what they think of Kelly's opinion...you might find Drea reacted quite mildly.

Or maybe the holocaust victim would smack you and Drea in the mouth for even bringing up the entirelly off topic unconnected point.  Even trying to draw the correlation between a personal preference that is actually indicative of what already happens in the real world naturally (the strong survive - this includes beauty) and Hitler, a man who killed millions of people, is shameful.  I have a little perspective here, my grandfather was one of Hitlers victims.

 

 

- 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:

That point is not in dispute - what Drea took offense to was Kellys preferance. Ask a holocust victim what they think of Kelly's opinion...you might find Drea reacted quite mildly.

Or maybe the holocaust victim would smack you and Drea in the mouth for even bringing up the entirelly off topic unconnected point.

Even trying to draw the correlation between a personal preference that is actually indicative of what already happens in the real world naturally (the strong survive - this includes beauty) and Hitler, a man who killed millions of people, is shameful. I have a little perspective here, my grandfather was one of Hitlers victims.

Keep reading - you are personalizing the issue and missing the 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.


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: Keep reading

Vorax wrote:

Keep reading - you are personalizing the issue and missing the point.

No - you guys are, and have been, missing the point. What I said would be more like, "I wish every girl had big boobs because I like to look at big boobs" or "I wish all these religious morons would stop reproducing so as not to taint a new generation with their inane ID arguments." Nowhere did I say anything about rights or killing or oppressing ANYBODY--nowhere. Get it through your fucking heads. I know what eugenics is and I never endorsed any such views. I wish all men were hot and had 9 inch cocks. Yeah--I want to fucking kill everybody who doesn't meet that standard.  

If anybody has been insulted and maligned here, it's me. First, I was responsible for the oppression of women. Then it was for taking unfair advantage of men. Then it was stealing jobs from more deserving candidates. How about this--get over it. I never said any of that shit and I'm just about sick of being compared to Hitler by you people. If anybody is close to fascism, it's you guys who want to force your idealism on everybody else. I am perfectly content to deal with individual opinions without resorting to comparing everybody that I disagree with to Hitler. 

Well, I'm off to work--another night where I can further oppress women and take advantage of men. YAY!!  


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
  kelly78 wrote: Do I

 

kelly78 wrote:

Do I wish that intelligent, attractive people would out-breed everybody else--yes. And I'm not at all ashamed to admit that. Fortunately, though, I don't expect everybody to share my opinion.

 

eu·gen·ics /yuˈdʒɛnɪks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[yoo-jen-iks] –noun (used with a singular verb) the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)

 

Kelly, I don't think you are a bad person at all - I have a lot of respect for both you and Sapient - but if you look at what you said and what the definition is - what you said fits. If that is not what you meant, fine but you didn't retract it.

Eugenics itself isn't evil and many brilliant thinkers in the past (see the wiki) believed that it was a viable concept - it was a common belief in the early part of the 20th century. "better breeding will lead to better people" - the problem is that in the wrong hands it can be evil - who among humanity has the right or knowledge to think they know what are "inheritable desirable traits"?

My opinion on this is you may not have stopped to ask is your opinion passing the litmus test of basic ethics - "Is this something I am ok with everyone feeling?" With everyone including dictators, crazies, etc. is this idea dangerous or safe. The general concensus is that it is a dangerous idea even if the majority that might hold it would be completely benign with it, not all would - to support the opinion therefore is the same as moderate christians supporting religion, they aren't evil but it validates the position of the fundamentalists.

Eugenics is something I studied at length years ago - I am something of a hobbiest ethics philosopher if you haven't noticed. The idea as you stated it seem harmless, but by condoining it, you are enabling it for others that may not share your intellect, sanity or compassion.

I will drop this - I know you aren't a bad person and I know you wouldn't want to hurt anyone with your opinions.

 PS: This conversation got completely out of hand and people got offended on both side, for several reasons.  I'm not going to do anymore speculating as to why - I just want to say..

Peace - You rock, Sapient rocks, Drea rocks, and anyone else that was offended rocks too!  Lets all agree to drop this thread and let it die 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:   by such

Vorax wrote:

  by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits

Now can you show us where she's done either?

She stated a personal preference.   A preference that actually coincides with our best understanding of nature. She never discouraged or encouraged anyone.

 

 

- 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:

by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits

Now can you show us where she's done either?

She stated a personal preference. A preference that actually coincides with our best understanding of nature. She never discouraged or encouraged anyone.

Ok, fine - I believe that is splitting hairs, but lets just drop it and agree to disagree, please. 

"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.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Here's mine!

Here's mine! Smiling


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Matt and I are just putting

Matt and I are just putting ourselves into a 'sexual prison'. lol. We're only going to be appreciated for our physical packages forever now.

 

I think that MANY MANY pages ago the accusation with regard that the RRS 'stands' with any issues other than atheism was proven to be FALSE.

For the four-thousandth time this month so far(hyperbole), the political views of any site member are not indicative of www.rationalresponders.com If people choose to make it so then it is their problem.

Eugenics has little relevance to the topic. Breeding good and killing bad has little to do with the alleged 'abuse' of the female form as promotion material for the site or anything else.

The op has already admitted that the premise for her objections was irrational. I was done two pages ago.

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