Replies

Replying to post 221: Regardless of anyone's view of homosexuality, your specific argument does not represent sound reasoning. It commits the fallacy of "arguing from 'is' to 'ought'," also sometimes called "the naturalistic fallacy". IOW, just because something "is" so (usually in nature) it does not follow that it "ought" to be so, or advocated (usually in human society).

For example, also in accord with "natural selection and survival of the fittest," male lions usually kill all the cubs in a pride when they take it over from another male. There are many other examples of ubiquitous infanticide in nature. Nor is infanticide uncommon in human cultures. None of this, however, morally justifies infanticide.

Human beings obviously evolved from animal predessors. Early humans developed language and social understandings than were in a struggle to understand responsibilities to the group. Individualistic perspectices like, "Nah,'I don't believe in the rain god' would not give you love and hugs in your clan.

Ethical concerns and common interest concerns developed. The notion of sin and "morality" from an invisible god of punishments derived from the old shamans. The idea of extending "humanness" to blacks, to Native Americans came later. The idea that female humans might be equal humans was a key understanding from Darwin.

Actually, it was the idea that blacks were inferior that came later. Read the Iliad or the Bible and you'll see in them no hint of the idea that "Ethiopians" were inferior.

And Plato promoted the equlity of females in the Republic long before any "feminist" did.

The notion of sin and "morality" from an invisible god of punishments derived from the old shamans. The idea of extending "humanness" to blacks, to Native Americans came later. The idea that female humans might be equal humans was a key understanding from Darwin.

Don't post drivel.

Can you post any specific evidence for each of these claims, or are you merely mindlessly parroting what others in a position of authority have told you?

You might try reading up on William Wilberforce (or even Charles Dickens' American Notes) before wanking off about how Darwin extended humanity to minorities.

And as for women not being equal, you might bother to read passages of St. Paul ('there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female, neither slave nor master, for you are all one in Christ Jesus'); or (since Catholicism is oft-mentioned in this thread) consider the unique position ascribed to Mary, before saying that Christianity primarily subjugated women (i.e. neither the Jews nor Christians had temple prositutes...).

I could say more but I don't want to start a flame war.

Cheers!