Posted on 07/22/2009 7:28:01 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
No use TalonDJ. I’ve tried and he’s still playing his little game. You won’t get anywhere with him either.
But thanks for trying.
“Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion”
Would that be like, First Base, Second Base, etc.?
What a bunch of Newsweek shite ........
Yeah, but hanging out in washrooms is fine according to these people.
My, my. Such grandiosity. And, all over a little nickname like "Forrest?"
I'll be back to you this evening.
With a persistent case such as his, sometimes you've just got to wade in and engage, lol.
Wade in if you will, but wear really tall boots.
You know what's really nutty about this thread? The article talks about a couple of "evolutionists" who argued that we have rape genes, but then goes on to describe lots of other "evolutionists" who have challenged not only that assertion but the whole field of evolutionary psychology. The whole point of the article is how that view is being overturned. And yet the anti-evolutionists here ignore all of that and imply that "evos" as a group accept the rape gene argument. It's like you/they didn't even read the article!
“...to do that I would need a coherent post of yours to reference...”
My, that’s the attitude that you’re accusing me of having, so you’re off to a bad start.
“-In your first post (5) you insulted the poster implying his utter lack of scientific knowledge for being dismissive of the article.”
Yep—that’s part of a long, ongoing discussion across many threads. I wouldn’t expect you to be fully aware of it. Nor would I expect you to be offended by it.
“-When other posters asked you to clarify you then attacked the article itself (10, 15)”
You have an odd definition of “attack”.
“-You response was to be insulting while trying to imply the article is not related to evolution (26).
-In response she did not insult you back (29) but did point out you were evading her question relating to you being inconsistent.
-In response you further insulted her (32) while at the same time claiming the article was not at all scientific due to where it was printed (thought Newsweek did not do the study)”
There was no inconsistency on my part. Your concern really should be addressed to cultmom. I mean metmom. Again, there are many threads of history that you are not party to.
“-From there things just degenerated into the childish back and forth with RegulatorCountry”
I really don’t care what you consider childish. The other poster lied and has been exposed.
“It is pretty clear you have no motivation here other than to insult. You are not even trying to defend evolutionary theory or research. Instead you are just disparaging related research while at the same time insulting those that question it. This is an inconsistent stance and seems to be grounded only in the desire to be abrasive. I suggested a simpler method for you.”
I’ll cut you some slack because I have not discussed the topic of evolution with you on any other thread to my knowledge. But just this once.
“NOW do you under stand my post? Or do I have to tell it with puppets?”
Save the puppets for the creation rationalizers, or I will have to skewer you with my razor-sharp acerbic wit.
Well, then, we really have a lot of folks to release from prison. I mean, if it’s genetically compelled, there’s not much we can do but offer counseling to victims and pray for gene therapy needed to free these perps from their compulsion. /sarc
Actually, inheritance of acquired characters is part of Darwin's theory of heredity. Lamarck didn't have an explicit theory of heredity, though his theory of evolution arguably implied something like (but not identical to) inheritance of acquired characters. Darwin said that acquired criminal behavior can be transmitted by heredity. Darwinians were the ones who popularized the notion that pauperism, prostitution, criminality, unemployment, etc, are in our germplasm. They have been saying this for over a hundred years. So "rape genes" are not a new notion--it's always amusing to see an evolutionist pretend to be shocked and offended by this or genetic determinism in general. Isn't that what Richard Dawkins is all about--genetic determinism? Anyway, Julian Huxley, Charles Davenport, Francis Galton, etc all promoted such notions of heredity. Every eugenist believes in this sort of thing and promotes it.
This little 1904 rant by communist-atheist-darwinian Robert Blatchford is interesting:
Are we to believe that the God who created all this boundless universe got so angry with the children of the apes that He condemned them all to Hell for two score centuries, and then could only appease His rage by sending His own Son to be nailed upon a cross ? Do you believe that? Can you believe it? No. As I said before, if the theory of evolution be true, there was nothing to atone for, and nobody to atone. Man has never sifined against God. In fact, the whole of this old Christian doctrine is a mass of error. There was no creation. There was no Fall. There was no Atonement. There was no Adam, and no Eve, and no Eden, and no Devil, and no Hell.For whereas the Christian theory of free will and personal responsibility results in established ignorance and injustice, with no visible remedies beyond personal denunciation, the prison, and a few coals and blankets, the Determinist method would result in the abolition of lords and burglars, of slums and palaces, of caste and snobbery. There would be no ignorance and no poverty left in the world. That is because the Determinist understands human nature, and the Christian does not. It is because the Determinist understands morality, and the Christian does not. For the Determinist looks for the cause of wrong-doing in the environment of the wrong-doer. While the Christian puts all the wrongs which society perpetrates against the individual, and all the wrongs which the individual perpetrates against his fellows down to an imaginary "free will."
Yes, and those people who have the counselling gene have no choice about it either.
Richard Dawkins' crack pipe has already mused upon this:
Ask people why they support the death penalty or prolonged incarceration for serious crimes, and the reasons they give will usually involve retribution…An especially warped and disgusting application of the flawed concept of retribution is Christian crucifixion as “atonement’ for “sin’.Clarence Darrow, the communist evolutionist, used these kind of arguments to get Leopold and Loeb off the hook.As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics. When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it.
Basil Fawlty, British television’s hotelier from hell created by the immortal John Cleese, was at the end of his tether when his car broke down and wouldn’t start. He gave it fair warning, counted to three, gave it one more chance, and then acted. “Right! I warned you. You’ve had this coming to you!” He got out of the car, seized a tree branch and set about thrashing the car within an inch of its life.
Why don’t we laugh at a judge who punishes a criminal, just as heartily as we laugh at Basil Fawlty?…[D]oesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused’s physiology, heredity and environment. Don’t judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?
Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing?
In such a philosophy, without any place for emotions and feelings, the intelligence reigns supreme.
A good article. Thanks!
Thanks for the ping, mm.
“I’ll be back to you this evening. “
Your self-imposed deadline has come and gone. I imagine that you and Forrest came up dry. You tried your best to use liberal democrat-like smears and diversions to cover your tracks, but you’ve failed.
You lied. It’s now clear to all who read this thread. How consistent with the entire creation rationalization MO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.