shirgall

Old posts are supposed to be discussed in the "Carbon" dating forum.

More likely came from some tribal chief claiming sole right of seeding the next generation. No one argues about food choices until there's a lot of choices.

I would sacrifice reason for survival.

Let's try Little House on the Prairie, both the original Ingalls family unit and the follow-ons. Sure, the typical "miscommunication leads to misunderstanding" trope runs around, but for the most part it's clear that it's built on trust and saying how you feel, and it's contrasted with other families that are around. Yeah, there's some harsher punishments, which come across as a product of the times. Admittedly the entire work comes across as a sentimental recollection through a forgiving nostalgic author (and show writers), but it was an attempt.

Animals don't have rights because they won't rebel and kill government leaders if they are violated. This is the only reason rights were invented.

I have an even better idea, when you give Stefan money, tell him why you did it. That's the kind of feedback that gets results.

Conservative Christian who produced a number of satirical videos, the most famous of which was a parody of Lena Dunham's Barack Obama campaign spot. He worked for Pajamas Media and Fox News, and supposedly was drummed out of Fox for being critical of Sean Hannity. He has a radio show/podcast/occasional video channel on Youtube these days.

We have only to look at a few decades to see species change in profound ways through selection. Look at dog breeds, or chicken breeds, or even cats. Nature is also a selector, but the more profound changes that lead to breeds that can no longer produce fertile offspring takes a bit longer (the dividing line for species is the fertility aspect). Horses and donkeys cannot produce fertile offspring, so they are different species instead of different breeds, but we are not amazed that they can make offspring at all. https://dogbehaviorscience.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/100-years-of-breed-improvement/

I lost patience with him when he came down on the side of child beaters.

My efforts on this front are on hold as I am facing a significant relocation. I'm interested in hearing if others are doing something, though.

To be fair to the OP, there are a million advertisements that start with the same phrase ("How do atheists explain this?" or "Atheists can't explain this!") making their round through conservative web sites. Admittedly the posting is along the same lines as those ads.

Aye, the only attention I give to these non-events is dutifully laughing when Adam rattles them off for immediate ridicule on the No Agenda show.

As someone that was raised without religion I don't relate to those who rebel against it or those that are tortured by the idea of leaving it. This was an interesting podcast for me. As one who is willing to talk to people from any background, and who respects people that really listen, I liked the discussion. I don't understand the (sometimes visceral) reaction to it. Stef's views came across as more pragmatic that utilitarian. The people, right now, who are most open to arguments about child abuse are who they are.

BATFE already backed off on this, profit realized. I nearly sold 3000 rounds at triple what I paid. Darn it.

When everything is special, nothing is.

4. He identifies which activities produce the greatest benefit for the least cost, and responding to forum postings is seldom good, but scouring the forum for topics generally is.

It implies a single winner, when there is room for plenty of species with sufficient primary and secondary characteristics, or niches, to thrive. For example, you could have great characteristics, but if you have a specific prey that doesn't thrive where you are, you aren't going to thrive either.

Earlier in the thread we talk about this very topic by taking apart the BLS's definition. Give it a look.

"1. I commit that I will engage in all public arguments with a sincere aim of mutual understanding, rather than only persuasion." Erm. How about. "1. I will be clear and engaged." "2. I commit that I will tolerate the existence of people with dissenting ethical, religious, or political views." That's incredibly condescending, and conflicts with the next one. "3. I commit that I will always focus first on the merits of other people’s arguments and not disparage them personally for asking unpleasant questions, taking unpleasant positions, or simply disagreeing with me." What's wrong with "2 & 3. I will focus on the merits." "4. When I feel it necessary to call out what I perceive to be the immoral behaviors or harmful attitudes of my interlocutors, I commit that I will do so only using specific charges, capable of substantiation, which they can contest with evidence and argumentation, at least in principle. I will not resort to merely abusive epithets and insult words (like “asshole” or “douchebag”) that hatefully convey fundamental disrespect, rather than criticize with moral precision." Um, "4. I will be specific and cordial." "5. I commit that I will go out of my way, if necessary, to remember that members of traditionally marginalized groups and victims of abuse have experiences that I may not have and which I may have to strain to properly weigh and appreciate." So much for #3, apparently. Why not, "5. I will appreciate the different experience and culture of the other." "6. I commit that I will not use any language that I know is offensive to either a subset of a marginalized group or to members of that group at large, for whatever reason." See #4 and "cordial". "7. I commit that I will not use any ableist language that disparages people over physical or mental limitations or illnesses." See #4 and "cordial". And on and on. TL; DR. There is no merit to this pledge other than a roundabout way to come back to the basic rules of rhetorical debate. Compare this pledge to the Covenant of Unanimous Consent: http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html That's got some teeth to it.

They're wrong. Natural selection is not about the "fittest", it's about the "fit enough". It's an oversimplification that causes problems, kinda like High School Physics asserting F=ma. ( http://usersguidetotheuniverse.com/?p=2718 )

Attacking the people making an argument or offering evidence is not a counter-argument.

Nothing in the family of theories encapsulated as "evolution" says anything about "most fit" but rather "fit enough to reproduce successfully".

It happened to survive long enough to make surviving offspring.

I'd start by recommending he read http://www.amazon.com/The-Manhattan-Project-Eyewitnesses-Historians/dp/1579128084 and maybe some Feynman and then we could talk about it.

Because they believe the organized brutal response to terror by specific groups is what lends them the most recruits and money. There is no profit in targeting casual atheists.