Act Now!

Banned Books Week

posted by Peter Rothberg on 09/29/2009 @ 4:23pm

I wasn't surprised to read that the American Library Association (ALA) reported at least 513 actual and attempted book bannings in the US in 2008. Here's the list of the ten most frequently challenged books of last year.

What did surprise me is this interactive map showing exactly where the bannings have taken place. Would you have guessed that many of the bluest states have been just as guilty as the cradle of the Confederacy? New England's puritanical heritage seems to be holding sway with the Eastern Seaboard awash in incidents of censorship.

Along with the locations of each incident, the map notes the offending titles and offer brief summaries of the cases against these tomes. The controversies range from predictable fears about magic-related YA fiction to traditional opposition to classics like Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. The transgressions range from the use of profanity and slang, to allegedly offensive depictions of racial or religious groups, to portrayals of homosexuals as anything other than mentally ill.

Here are three fairly random examples drawn from the map:

In 2008, in Bartlesville, OK, Maureen Johnson's The Bermudez Triangle was removed from circulation at the Bartlesville Mid-High School library because of parental complaints about the book's homosexual themes and scenes of underage drinking. ABFFE and NCAC sent letters to the superintendent and Board of Education opposing the book's removal which were ignored.

In Loudon County, VA, this past year Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell's And Tango Makes Three was placed on restricted access in all elementary school libraries and public schools throughout Loudoun County. The book was challenged by a parent who objected to the story of two male penguins raising a chick as an attack on heterosexuals. The book was reviewed by administrators and no restrictions were recommended however the superintendent decided unilaterally to restrict student access.

In my hometown of Brooklyn, NY, Herge's Tintin Au Congo was challenged at the Brooklyn Public Library for offensive depictions of Africans. The book has been moved to a back room and is currently available by appointment only.

This illuminating map was created by the ALA to mark Banned Books Week, currently running through this weekend. The only national celebration of the freedom to read, Banned Books Week was launched in 1982 in response to a sudden surge in the number of challenges to books in schools, bookstores, libraries and prisons.

Each year during the last week of September hundreds of libraries and bookstores around the country highlight the benefits of free and open access to information while drawing attention to the harms of censorship by spotlighting actual or attempted bannings of books across the United States. In Fayettville, Ark., the Banished Book Lunch Club will spotlight books banned for political, social, sexual and religious reasons, including East of Eden by John Steinbeck; Johnny Got his Gun by Dalton Trumbo; Ordinary People by Judith Guest; The Giver by Lois Lowry and Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov. In Alamorgado, NM, organizers of a book discussion of Khaled Hosseini's The Kite Runner (one of 2008's most frequently banned books) encourage attendees to dress as a character from your favorite banned book. In Newport, OR, there'll be a communal reading of Catcher in the Rye.

See this list of events to find something happening in your area, and check out these things you can do to help remind people of the importance of free speech.

PS: If you have extra time on your hands and want to follow me on Twitter -- a micro-blog -- click here. You'll find (slightly) more personal posts, breaking news, basketball and lots of links.

Comments (155)

  1. well Peter, they can probably just argue they are acting as moderators and protecting other people...recall something similar to that happening here?

    oh, right...there it's "free speech"...here, it's necessary "regulation"

    once one threatens to censor, his complaints of censorship elsewhere ring hollow...

    I, however, am for free-speech, and find keeping books from kids under the guise of "protecting" them to be absurd. I also find that violence is not worthy of censorship but sex and cursing are to be equally absurd.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 4:32pm

  2. and save the "this isn't about free speech on an internet message board" argument...the censorship that was threatened here is no less a "I know what's best" attitude than people protecting their kids from books they find inappropriate.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 4:33pm

  3. The censorship that the managers of these threads actually exercise, "urmygyro," is both (1) minimal and (2) ineffectual.

    (1) It's minimal because, by my own estimation, up to two thirds of commenters on blogs of THE NATION on any given day are right-wing cranks. And even the very worst of them, fact-challenged ignoramuses immune to all reason and research, are banned no more than once a year or so.

    (2) It's ineffectual because most of these "bans" are only temporary. Tenacious cranks can easily re-register under different names, and they often do.

    It is possible to keep out the cranks without "censoring" them by means of a very simple device: require each participant to PAY to register. This is what the Free Republic does, which explains how this hideous right-wing Know-Nothing club keeps its commentary threads virtually free of liberals. Rare indeed is the liberal whose conscience could justify sending even one penny to the Freepers.

    Of course, you mustn't imagine that we liberals actually READ most of what right-wing trolls write. I believe I read more of their crap than most liberals do. I usually respond only when I believe I can make use of a particularly stupid statement as an instructional or cautionary example.

    I can't speak for other liberals who read these threads, but I imagine that a lot of us make generous use of the "ignore this person" option. My own ignore list presently contains fewer than 10 names, but I am thinking of expanding it. It's sort of like updating the spam filter on your e-mail application.

    For what it's worth, "urmygyro," I haven't added you to my ignore list yet. Sometimes, I consider what you write to be worth reading. At other times, I can ignore you without technological help.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/29/2009 @ 5:24pm

  4. Peter, I find this attack rather bizarre. When I saw the headline, I was prepared to join in agreement with you

    As a libertarian, I am against censorship when it comes to the choices of adults.

    Children are entirely another matter. We have decided in this country long ago that the mor'es of a community and most especially, that of parents must be paramount.

    Children lack the emotional and experential maturity to adequately make sound conclusions about homosexuality and language. This is even reflected in our film industry restrictions.

    Additionally, I was bothered by the tone of the ALA in this matter. I felt like I was reading about a leftist crusade against "ignorant conservatives" rather than maintaining and preserving a public library system that exposes the citizenry to classical literature and expands the mind as the founders envisioned.

    Perusing the top 10 find most centered on homosexuality and foul language as objectionable for age protected groups. This is consistent with what I mentioned is our current practice with film.

    Finally, if any doubt about the ALA having an agenda rather than serving as stewards of the library system, one need only read the interview they have with Mr Crutcher. He evidently is the most banned author in the system.

    According to Mr Crutcher, he is purposely engaged in an "in your face" campaign via his books against conservative morality and specifically against Christian morality. That speaks volumes about this debate. It's not about Mark Twain or Huck Finn. Only a very tiny minority even make that attempt any longer (and we can all agree that they are mistaken on that).

    http://tinyurl.com/ydxqlnc

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 5:33pm

  5. If people are concerned about free speech and censorship then they should be concerned about what is going on over in Europe these days.

    Any kind of public writing let alone a book that has any critical comment about Islam or radical Islam draws big-time trouble from it's author.

    And not just from Islamic radicals anymore, but also from many over there, way too many, who feel that free speech carries with it some kind of responsiblity to censor oneself if somebody else will be offended by what they say.

    The "somebody else" that would be offended part only seems to include concern about reaction by Islamic people, otherwise Europeans don't concern themselves with who would be offended by their writings.

    People over there who are publicly critical of Islam can face actual criminal prosecution.

    Anybody concerned about free speech here in the U.S. needs to keep a wary eye on what is happening in Europe these days, not only for the sake of other humans who are being denied that right, but to insure that kind of official mindset does not take hold here.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/29/2009 @ 5:38pm

  6. For what it's worth, "urmygyro," I haven't added you to my ignore list yet. Sometimes, I consider what you write to be worth reading. At other times, I can ignore you without technological help. Posted by JakobFabian at 09/29/2009 @ 5:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --I have no one on my ignore list; but I don't read most people's posts.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 5:43pm

  7. URM -- Your pt is true BS. There's a major difference bet. a publicly-funded school system banning a book entirely and the writer of a blog threatening to ban off-point attacks in the comments field of a particular post on the website of a private magazine company. I also have no power to keep you here. Go away forever if you don't like this thread and how it's run. There are millions of other blogs for you to spend your time with. A child in a public sch system doesn't have that option. These are legal distinctions, moral distinctions and common-sense distinctions. Just use your brain before you write.

    JAKOB -- I agree entirely. And we are thinking of how to be more effectual so as not to have everyone rely on the ignore function to filter out annoyances like URM.

    ANTI -- You find free antibotics for poor people bizarre so not surprised you favor banning books.

    SJC -- Good reminder.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 09/29/2009 @ 5:49pm

  8. Posted by sjchermak at 09/29/2009 @ 5:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --there's a wonderful, if not dry, read called "The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn" by Diane Ravitch.

    it's about textbook censorship and generic testing (in all levels of education in the u.s.) and how students are shielded from anything that could be considered remotely offensive.

    Peter focused on certain books being banned; but reading this book will open your eyes to how books that are out there are so watered-down as to have essentially nothing in common with reality.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 5:50pm

  9. Peter: "Your pt is true BS."

    --completely false. censorship is censorship. You didn't like what I was saying: the content. The Nation should be ashamed of you.

    Peter: "There's a major difference bet. a publicly-funded school system banning a book entirely and the writer of a blog threatening to ban off-point attacks in the comments field of a particular post on the website of a private magazine company."

    --yeah I already said it's not a constitutional free speech issue. You wanted to censor me 'cause you didn't like what I said. I could have been off-topic and said something you agreed with and you would have said nothing. Other people here go "off-topic" all the time (and thousands of posts have been off topic from the blog above the comment section since you threatened to censor me, but I've seen you say nada about them (further proof that you didn't like what I said; your threat of censorship wasn't really about being off-topic, it was about disagreeing with my content).

    Peter: "I also have no power to keep you here. Go away forever if you don't like this thread and how it's run."

    --already said it's not a constitutional free speech issue here. but your rhetoric is similar to the people you claim to have a problem with. kudos!

    Peter: "There are millions of other blogs for you to spend your time with. A child in a public sch system doesn't have that option. These are legal distinctions, moral distinctions and common-sense distinctions. Just use your brain before you write."

    --I use my brain all the time. You don't like that I'm reminding you of your threat of censorship. Too bad for you I'm on topic here bringing it up! I've already conceded the "legal distinction"...but morally, you're not as different as you'd fancy yourself to be...

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 5:57pm

  10. Peter: "JAKOB -- I agree entirely. And we are thinking of how to be more effectual so as not to have everyone rely on the ignore function to filter out annoyances like URM."

    --another threat of censorship! you should be PROUD!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 5:59pm

  11. Hey Peter--the G20 protesters didn't "have" to protest in Pittsburgh. Not long ago you (and at least one other Nation blogger) were complaining about how the people have no access to the meetings. Maybe the G20 would let some representatives of the "people" (not elected representatives, mind you, but just some regular citizens) to voice their opinions if they agreed to censor what they had to say!

    then we'd all win!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 6:03pm

  12. "According to Mr Crutcher, he is purposely engaged in an "in your face" campaign via his books against conservative morality and specifically against Christian morality. That speaks volumes about this debate." Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 5:33pm

    I can't, by the way, find the interview you are referring to in the paragraph before the one I quoted. But regardless of the ALA's agenda, that doesn't "speak volumes about this debate". It IS still about Mark Twain, and anyone else; this is about censorship, not the ALA. Faults in organizations and individuals in no way compromise ideas against censorship.

    Posted by Multifactor at 09/29/2009 @ 6:08pm

  13. Peter--what say you about the textbook situation in this country? I mean, the banned books are something kids can get at a library, or if their public library has banned them, then get them in a different town; or get them when they're older and have money.

    But kids are forced to read textbooks. This seems a perfect 1st amendment issue. the censorship in textbooks is ridiculous. care to take up this cause?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 6:20pm

  14. Think we need a "Fairness Doctrine" for books?

    No books should be banned, speakers at universitys should never be shouted down, and authors who sell well shouldn't be banned from TV shows, best seller lists or reviews...

    but the world ain't fair.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 09/29/2009 @ 6:24pm

  15. Peter, do not comment on these threads! You are too good for that! You have a life! You are wading into an area where intelligent conversation dies by the 50th post and everyone forgets what the blog post was actually about in the first place!

    REMAIN PURE!

    Posted by badreligionlover at 09/29/2009 @ 6:26pm

  16. ANTI -- You find free antibotics for poor people bizarre so not surprised you favor banning books.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 09/29/2009 @ 5:49pm

    Peter, you are too experienced to make such a mischaracterization.

    Are you against the film rating system? or do you believe that children can watch anything they want even without parental permission?

    Do you believe that parents have any rights concerning their children's reading matter? Or is the right of an author to be considered more important than the parent?

    As I said, I'm against banning books and censorship of any kind for adults. But I still believe that the rights and responsibilities of parents come before the rights of authors or leftist librarians.

    Now if parents want to get their child a book that most parents in the community find offensive, the parents should have that right.

    I just believe in parents more than I believe in librarians.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 6:35pm

  17. badreligionlover--do you think my 6:20pm post is not on topic and/or an unfair question?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 6:35pm

  18. seems badreligionlover is advising peter to act as the g20: ignore the "lunatics" on the street peter, remain "pure," don't talk with the commoners...

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 6:37pm

  19. Now that corporations have the rights of individuals, its time that they began reading, rather than running wild in the streets. Any provision of regulatory materials can be enlivened with foul language, personal pornographic slander & other blue material. This will reflect the dilemma faced by homes, schools & institutions concerned with the moral maintenance of their charges.

    In this way, corporations can choose unadulterated & censored reading material conforming with the social mores of their most ardent supporters. After a corporate exec gets a dose of expletive laced regulation, he will be glad to conform to the instructions of a more benign text.

    Its a win -win situation. And regardless if materials are dirty or clean, politically correct or offensive in any way, one thing is certain; virtually all will be published by those very same corporate entities.

    Posted by Sorelish at 09/29/2009 @ 6:41pm

  20. antisocialist: "Do you believe that parents have any rights concerning their children's reading matter? Or is the right of an author to be considered more important than the parent?"

    --fair questions. and even though I'm against banning books; banning them is similar to a rating system when it comes to t.v. and movies (pg-13 is a "ban" on allowing 12 and under to watch the movies; R is a "ban" on 17 and under). Also, a ban on books being shelved in a school or public library does not mean the author's books are banned from being published. And, of course, adults can get their hands on the material if they so wish.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 6:41pm

  21. antisocialist: "Do you believe that parents have any rights concerning their children's reading matter? Or is the right of an author to be considered more important than the parent?"

    --fair questions. and even though I'm against banning books; banning them is similar to a rating system when it comes to t.v. and movies (pg-13 is a "ban" on allowing 12 and under to watch the movies; R is a "ban" on 17 and under). Also, a ban on books being shelved in a school or public library does not mean the author's books are banned from being published. And, of course, adults can get their hands on the material if they so wish.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 6:41pm

    Exactly my point and why I felt that Peter's response completely mischaracterized my position. Something he usually doesn't do.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 6:45pm

  22. "Perusing the top 10 find most centered on homosexuality and foul language as objectionable for age protected groups. This is consistent with what I mentioned is our current practice with film. "

    Yeah I'm sure two Penguins raising a chick is very objectionable.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 6:51pm

  23. well Peter, they can probably just argue they are acting as moderators and protecting other people...recall something similar to that happening here?

    oh, right...there it's "free speech"...here, it's necessary "regulation"

    once one threatens to censor, his complaints of censorship elsewhere ring hollow...

    I, however, am for free-speech, and find keeping books from kids under the guise of "protecting" them to be absurd. I also find that violence is not worthy of censorship but sex and cursing are to be equally absurd.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 4:32pm

    I would assume you are talking about me when I said that people should moderate the boards to keep them on topic. It is obvious you do not see the difference between censorship and keeping discussions on topic. I don't care if BigPasture comes on here and post that all liberals are the devil and are going to kill every old person in the nation. If it's on topic it doesn't matter to me. Like I said before if Happy wants to discuss a topic I am more than Happy to discuss it with him at the appropriate time. But these are not his personal boards.

    Just like I can not walk onto a television news stations set and start discussing whatever I want with the camera others cannot walk onto a private board that has specified conversation pieces and then just start talking about whatever they want.

    I on the other hand am against censoring materials. I don't believe in hiding the real world from children. I think if homosexuality or offensive languages are used as topics in literature it is fine for children to be exposed to the real world. To some people the word nigger is offensive but we seem to be ok with our children reading Tom Sawyer. Why is it not ok for them to then read other "offensive" words?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 7:02pm

  24. Yeah I'm sure two Penguins raising a chick is very objectionable.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 6:51pm

    Why did you leave out the word male in the description?

    That is a very critical point.

    Surely you are not going to tell me that the book is not about promoting a positive image to children of homosexuality?

    Are you also one of those who believes that libraries and authors should have more authority than parents?

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 7:04pm

  25. To Larry, it is your duty to oversee what your children read not the libraries.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 7:05pm

  26. Why did you leave out the word male in the description?

    That is a very critical point.

    Surely you are not going to tell me that the book is not about promoting a positive image to children of homosexuality?

    Are you also one of those who believes that libraries and authors should have more authority than parents?

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 7:04pm

    The libraries and authors don't have more authority. If you don't want your child reading a book then don't let them. However if I want my child to have access to these books then they should. Your parenting choices should not interfere with my children. this being all figurative by the way because I don't have children. Just because you dislike homosexuals doesn't mean my child should have to also.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 7:07pm

  27. ccc: "I would assume you are talking about me when I said that people should moderate the boards to keep them on topic."

    --no, I was talking about Peter.

    ccc: "It is obvious you do not see the difference between censorship and keeping discussions on topic."

    --some would say censorship is just a way to keep the content of something away from certain topics. I'm not talking about free speech, mind you, just censorship.

    ccc: "I don't care if BigPasture comes on here and post that all liberals are the devil and are going to kill every old person in the nation. If it's on topic it doesn't matter to me. Like I said before if Happy wants to discuss a topic I am more than Happy to discuss it with him at the appropriate time. But these are not his personal boards."

    --(nearly) everyone here goes off topic A LOT. and I seriously doubt you've never gone off topic.

    ccc: "Just like I can not walk onto a television news stations set and start discussing whatever I want with the camera others cannot walk onto a private board that has specified conversation pieces and then just start talking about whatever they want."

    --again, seems rather selective, when so many go off topic so often. and the worst "offenders" are the regulars who "know" each other.

    ccc: "I on the other hand am against censoring materials. I don't believe in hiding the real world from children. I think if homosexuality or offensive languages are used as topics in literature it is fine for children to be exposed to the real world. To some people the word nigger is offensive but we seem to be ok with our children reading Tom Sawyer. Why is it not ok for them to then read other "offensive" words?" --I totally agree. However, parental authority is an important issue in this regard.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 7:40pm

  28. Why did you leave out the word male in the description? That is a very critical point. Surely you are not going to tell me that the book is not about promoting a positive image to children of homosexuality? Are you also one of those who believes that libraries and authors should have more authority than parents? Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 7:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --larry, what if a community believed the Bible should be banned because of fairly explicit descriptions of violence? would you be offended?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 7:46pm

  29. Most people do go off topic. Happy just tends to be the only one who more or less comes on and says I don't like this topic let's discuss this. Most forays off topic I see tend to be while talking about the topic someone will bring something up in their argument that will then take it off topic. I generally try to stay within the confines of what is discussed in the the thread. I can't think of times when I have intentionally taken the thread off topic I may have but like I said I cannot think of them.

    "I totally agree. However, parental authority is an important issue in this regard."

    Agreed. Parental authority is very important. I do not think schools should force children to read material that is commonly considered objectionable. But that material should be available to those who want it.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 7:52pm

  30. Again we aren't talking about making porn available here. I am talking about providing what is commonly deemed to be literature.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 7:53pm

  31. Oh and by the Larry. The books on the top ten list are not all about homosexuality and offensive language.

    His Dark Materials trilogy, by Philip Pullman Reasons: political viewpoint, religious viewpoint, and violence

    The His Dark Materials series had nothing to do with offensive language and kids read books on a daily basis that are considered classic literature that portray more violence than those books do. That book was banned because it was considered to have anti-religious undertones.

    "Scary Stories (series), by Alvin Schwartz Reasons: occult/satanism, religious viewpoint, and violence"

    Sounds like the same reasons they tried to ban Harry Potter.

    So should we ban kids from reading anything that expresses a viewpoint? Whether it be religious or one about homosexuality even if that homosexuality is not in actual discussion. For instance the book about the two penguins never actually mentions homosexuality and I am sure a child young enough to be reading that book would probably not even make that connection.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 8:01pm

  32. my curiosity is why don't parents who don't like certain books follow up on what their kids are reading...and if they don't like the themes or messages of a certain book, they can talk to their kids about it and tell their kids why they disagree.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 8:12pm

  33. --larry, what if a community believed the Bible should be banned because of fairly explicit descriptions of violence? would you be offended?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 7:46pm

    On the same token he claims that children are not old enough to make a decision on homosexuality but at the same time I would contend that children are not old enough to understand and make intelligent informed decisions when it comes to religion but the religious certainly see no problem with children reading religious texts and going to Sunday school where they tell them the fun stories about the Whale and David and Goliath.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 8:14pm

  34. my curiosity is why don't parents who don't like certain books follow up on what their kids are reading...and if they don't like the themes or messages of a certain book, they can talk to their kids about it and tell their kids why they disagree.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 8:12pm

    Because people don't want to take responsibility for their own kids. They want to force everyone to subscribe to their parenting style so they don't have to have an open and frank discussion with their children.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 8:15pm

  35. ccc--I think you're right; and I look forward to Larry's answer to my question about a community banning the bible for children b/c it's too violent (it seems a community would be justified, since larry brought up parents having that power; and made the comparison to the rating system for movies).

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 8:21pm

  36. Yeah I'm sure two Penguins raising a chick is very objectionable.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 6:51pm

    Why did you leave out the word male in the description?

    That is a very critical point.

    Surely you are not going to tell me that the book is not about promoting a positive image to children of homosexuality?

    Are you also one of those who believes that libraries and authors should have more authority than parents?

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 7:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Stop the penguin-hating.

    A penguin's lifestyle is his choice and his alone--back off!

    If you were alone and freezing your ass off in the Antarctic with eggshells up your hiney, let's see how picky YOU would be about "finding someone."

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/29/2009 @ 8:31pm

  37. Stop the penguin-hating.

    A penguin's lifestyle is his choice and his alone--back off!

    If you were alone and freezing your ass off in the Antarctic with eggshells up your hiney, let's see how picky YOU would be about "finding someone."

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/29/2009 @ 8:31pm

    It's true. Beggars can't be choosers and in the arctic everyone is a beggar.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 8:34pm

  38. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8081829.stm

    Larry. The Penguin thing is real. It happens in real life. So now the book is just about science, it has nothing to do with a pro gay agenda.

    http://tinyurl.com/yfak8hp

    I guess there are people who dislike gays in all the animal kingdoms.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 8:37pm

  39. --larry, what if a community believed the Bible should be banned because of fairly explicit descriptions of violence? would you be offended?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 7:46pm

    I would not on the basis of community standards, except now you are violating the first amendment right to freedom of religion.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 8:39pm

  40. I would not on the basis of community standards, except now you are violating the first amendment right to freedom of religion.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 8:39pm

    Not really. You are free to practice your religion you are just not free to indoctrinate my children with it would be the potential argument. Just like everyone else is free to practice homosexuality you are just arguing they are not free to indoctrinate your children with it.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 8:45pm

  41. Not really. You are free to practice your religion you are just not free to indoctrinate my children with it would be the potential argument. Just like everyone else is free to practice homosexuality you are just arguing they are not free to indoctrinate your children with it.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 8:45pm

    That wasn't the question posed to me. The question was about would I be offended if a community banned the Bible. That has nothing to do with proslytizing children.

    And another strawman on your part. I have never advocated that people should not be free to practice homosexuality.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 9:00pm

  42. That wasn't the question posed to me. The question was about would I be offended if a community banned the Bible. That has nothing to do with proslytizing children.

    And another strawman on your part. I have never advocated that people should not be free to practice homosexuality.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 9:00pm

    No I'm not making a strawman. I was addressing your argument that you are infringing on freedom of religion. I am saying it is no more and infringement on freedom of religion than banning a book that addressed homosexuality.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 9:04pm

  43. Larry. The Penguin thing is real. It happens in real life. So now the book is just about science, it has nothing to do with a pro gay agenda.

    http://tinyurl.com/yfak8hp

    I guess there are people who dislike gays in all the animal kingdoms.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 8:37pm

    This is an oft repeated myth put forward by homosexual advocates.

    There is ZERO evidence of homosexuality in animals. As a number of scientists have pointed out, mankind is incapable of knowing what certain animal behaviors actually mean since animals are incapable of communicating a response.

    The penguin example is a perfect example of liberal hyperbole. Nothing about them allows any scientific conclusion of homosexuality. It is pure conjecture.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 9:06pm

  44. --larry, what if a community believed the Bible should be banned because of fairly explicit descriptions of violence? would you be offended?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 7:46pm

    I would not on the basis of community standards, except now you are violating the first amendment right to freedom of religion.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 8:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --how is freedom of religion violated by a group of parents who ensure the Bible is taken off bookshelves in a PUBLIC school?...and in PUBLIC libraries?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 9:36pm

  45. This is an oft repeated myth put forward by homosexual advocates. There is ZERO evidence of homosexuality in animals. As a number of scientists have pointed out, mankind is incapable of knowing what certain animal behaviors actually mean since animals are incapable of communicating a response. The penguin example is a perfect example of liberal hyperbole. Nothing about them allows any scientific conclusion of homosexuality. It is pure conjecture. Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 9:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --poor Larry, he will be a homophobe until the day he dies.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 9:38pm

  46. 'Peter: "JAKOB -- I agree entirely. And we are thinking of how to be more effectual so as not to have everyone rely on the ignore function to filter out annoyances like URM."'

    Dear Peter,

    Your point about the distinction between public and private censorship is an important one, and I'm glad you brought it up.

    I'm afraid I don't have any real proposal to make forums at THE NATION more palatable for its liberal readers. Like most liberals, I'm ambivalent about even PRIVATE censorship, though I'm sure nearly everybody practices this kind of censorship - privately, of course.

    When I brought up the Free Republic website, I suppose I did intend to suggest, HALF-heartedly, that maybe the "economic" solution is the best: By requiring readers to pay to register (in order to comment), we would insure that only subscribers and liberal-minded people would participate in web forums of THE NATION. Moreover, quite a lot of libertarians wouldn't even RECOGNIZE this mercantile exclusionary tactic as censorship, which is surely an added bonus.

    However, I am ambivalent about this HALF-hearted proposal for two reasons. First of all, I generally oppose "pay-to-play" solutions as plutocratic. Secondly, I rather enjoy reading some screwball conservative opinions, even here. As I said before, sometimes they can be used as instructive or cautionary examples.

    Finally, I believe "urmygyro" hardly ranks among the most annoying trolls on these threads - far from it. As I said before, I have my own opinion about who is worth reading and who isn't, and I still regard "urmygyro" as readable.

    I suppose all that I can WHOLE-heartedly recommend is that liberal readers make "liberal" use of the "ignore this person" function. The beauty of this option is that everybody is free to choose it.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/29/2009 @ 9:56pm

  47. Now, back to the topic, albeit by a circuitous path, namely by way of "sjchermak," who wrote:

    'If people are concerned about free speech and censorship then they should be concerned about what is going on over in Europe these days.'

    And what exactly is going on over there these days? Are they burning books again? Please provide at least one source for what you claim is happening, if you don't mind.

    'Any kind of public writing let alone a book that has any critical comment about Islam or radical Islam draws big-time trouble from it's author.'

    Please read the above sentence again, "sjchermak." Surely European writers who comment critically about Islam do not object to their own work? I know a writer should be self-critical, but giving oneself "big-time trouble" is surely going too far!

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/29/2009 @ 10:01pm

  48. Jakob: "Finally, I believe "urmygyro" hardly ranks among the most annoying trolls on these threads - far from it. As I said before, I have my own opinion about who is worth reading and who isn't, and I still regard "urmygyro" as readable."

    --thanks for the backhanded compliment?

    Jakob: "I suppose all that I can WHOLE-heartedly recommend is that liberal readers make "liberal" use of the "ignore this person" function. The beauty of this option is that everybody is free to choose it."

    --or they can do as I do; just scroll by most posts. This is a very small community. How many people here post a comment at least 1 comment 5 days per week? 50? if that? I can't imagine there's a big group of people who never, or very rarely, comment, who come here often to read anonymous comments and who are being driven away by "trolls"

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 10:12pm

  49. Now, back to the topic, albeit by a circuitous path, namely by way of "sjchermak," who wrote:

    'If people are concerned about free speech and censorship then they should be concerned about what is going on over in Europe these days.'

    And what exactly is going on over there these days?

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/29/2009 @ 10:01pm

    But I thought the big story about Europe is about how it's "swinging to the right" and how socialism is on the retreat there. SJCHER should be rolling his hips and just SQUEAKING with delight with news like that.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/world/europe/29socialism.html

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/29/2009 @ 10:15pm

  50. OOPS, that's right, it's a pinko NYT article.

    Sorry.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/29/2009 @ 10:16pm

  51. 'Think we need a "Fairness Doctrine" for books?'

    No, I don't, and I don't know of any liberal who does, "YourJomamma."

    The "Fairness Doctrine" was actually a good idea, back in the day when there were only three major television networks. In the olden days, each of these networks was required to present at least two opposing views - including, presumably, the views of their corporate owners (mostly plutocrats, then as now) and the views of their owners' detractors (people like me). As a result, each station functioned more or less well as a "balanced" medium.

    The problem with this doctrine is that it could not prevent the drifting of the perceived political center rightward. The "fair and balanced" strategy has now been modified (according to a method perfected by Fox News) so that the "controversy" that appears in most major media now takes place between what formerly would have been called a slightly right-of-center position and the extreme right-wing position.

    For this reason, I regard the "Fairness Doctrine" as sadly obsolete. Reviving this dinosaur in order to promote media diversity would be like defending the Pentagon with a moat and a retractable drawbridge.

    I believe the best way to restore media diversity now would be to rescind the hideous Telecommunications Act of 1996 and to bust up the media trusts down to manageable bits. It would also be a good idea to rule that Disney's copyrights have finally run out, so that this corporation will once again have to get creative and will no longer profit so richly by lazily cranking out cheap knock-offs of its own classics.

    Another great idea would be to shore up our public media, perhaps creating a kind of BBC for the USA, which would force the corporate media to conform to a higher journalistic standard.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/29/2009 @ 10:24pm

  52. --how is freedom of religion violated by a group of parents who ensure the Bible is taken off bookshelves in a PUBLIC school?...and in PUBLIC libraries?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 9:36pm

    That wasn't what you originally asked.

    You asked about a community banning the Bible.

    If the Bible was taken off of bookshelves in a public school or public library, I would think it a dumb decision, but I would not protest it, nor consider it to be a violation of freedom of religion.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 10:30pm

  53. Credit where credit is due - You are to be thanked, "urmygyro," for your reference to Diane Ravitch and her good work.

    I cannot endorse everything that she wrote (and I absolutely reject the notion that multiculturalism and "high standards" are incompatible), but it's true that political correctness does overreach itself on occasion. Banning HUCKLEBERRY FINN because it contains the "n-word" is a prime example.

    It does have to be pointed out that choosing public school textbooks and banning books from public school libraries are two separate, though related issues. Public school textbooks do indeed get watered down, which is why it is important to permit books to be included in public school libraries that are completely undiluted. Children do not get to choose which textbooks their teachers will require them to read, so it comes as no surprise that these texts tend to be bland, because too many people (mostly parents, but some teachers, too) don't want to require our little darlings to read anything "controversial." But children DO get to choose which books they take out of their public school library (or at least, they should), and I believe I agree with nearly everybody here that their choice should be as broad as possible, especially when they reach high-school age.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/29/2009 @ 10:42pm

  54. We can END all book banning! It is easy!

    1. Remove all books from school libraries not subject germaine to math, science, writing composition, technology, trades, business, or agreed upon by parental majorities.

    2. Close public libraries and limit the price of all books published to $1.00 each 500 pages.

    This way reading subjects MUST stand on their own merits as judged by parental authority or the desire of individual readers. If TRASH is your treasure you can feel free to indulge without forcing anyone to compromise their standards or those of their children!

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/29/2009 @ 11:50pm

  55. Posted by JakobFabian at 09/29/2009 @ 9:56pm:

    Without a mix of liberal/conservative banter, The Nation blogs would be pretty boring. Much better to duke it out even though the liberal view point is pretty lame. :)

    Posted by pyeatte at 09/29/2009 @ 11:56pm

  56. We can END all book banning! It is easy! 1. Remove all books from school libraries not subject germaine to math, science, writing composition, technology, trades, business, or agreed upon by parental majorities.

    --so end book banning by removing any controversial books! surely you jest!

    2. Close public libraries and limit the price of all books published to $1.00 each 500 pages. This way reading subjects MUST stand on their own merits as judged by parental authority or the desire of individual readers. If TRASH is your treasure you can feel free to indulge without forcing anyone to compromise their standards or those of their children!

    --one man's trash is another man's treasure...it's all subjective. I find public libraries to be an absolute treasure, and have spent much time in a two different ones in CT. and I'm glad you don't get to decide the content of what's in those libraries.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 11:59pm

  57. --poor Larry, he will be a homophobe until the day he dies.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 9:38pm

    But he will always maintain that he isn't a homophobe he is just pointing out that they are perverts and possessed by Satan.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 01:06am

  58. This is an oft repeated myth put forward by homosexual advocates.

    There is ZERO evidence of homosexuality in animals. As a number of scientists have pointed out, mankind is incapable of knowing what certain animal behaviors actually mean since animals are incapable of communicating a response.

    The penguin example is a perfect example of liberal hyperbole. Nothing about them allows any scientific conclusion of homosexuality. It is pure conjecture.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 9:06pm

    You sure do sound certain it doesn't exist even after you said it can't be proven true or false. Looks like you aren't listening to the scientific evidence either.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 01:07am

  59. Funny that you don't see what you are saying is that there is no prood it does or does not exist. Just that they can't classify it. But I also ask that you show your evidence as that proof that it can not be scientifically shown. Also if it doesn't exist in animals why then do two males have sex with each other?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 01:09am

  60. JakobFabian,

    1. The sentence of mine that you highlighted contained a typo. Instead of "big-time trouble from it's author" it should have read "big-time trouble for it's author"

    2. As far as Islam and Europe, read the book "Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom" by author Bruce Bawer. They are not burning books in Europe, people are intimidated from speaking their minds in the first place.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/30/2009 @ 03:35am

  61. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 01:09am

    Larry frequents the "Christian science" (Not "Christian Science" the Mary Baker Eddy bunch...but the various "creation science/Answers in Genesis" type fundy/evangey apologia sites) and believes their various takes on how "liberal atheist science is wrong".....

    from how "there are NO demonstrations of homosexual behavior in animals" to the "total dissimilarity of chmps and people" or to telling him that Neanderthals were "some form of upright ape, but nothing like us humans".

    BTW, on-topic, for violence and genocide...you can't beat The Bible. But naturally, few right-wingers would support that being "put on a reserved list"....not simply because of the religious aspect, but also because they really don't have much problem with kids reading about violence.

    Oh and Peter....as the old saying goes, don't wrestle with pigs...just gets you dirty and the pig likes it!

    Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 07:29am

  62. Mask: "BTW, on-topic, for violence and genocide...you can't beat The Bible. But naturally, few right-wingers would support that being "put on a reserved list"....not simply because of the religious aspect, but also because they really don't have much problem with kids reading about violence."

    --seems to be in exact agreement with my many comments, not just on this thread. Mask would never admit he's agreeing with me though...heheh

    Mask: "Oh and Peter....as the old saying goes, don't wrestle with pigs...just gets you dirty and the pig likes it!"

    --cut-and-paste KVH's post about how you're "nasty" and always "looking for a fight." Also, many, many posters have placed you on ignore. Seems they view you a pig that likes to get dirty! heheh.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/30/2009 @ 08:28am

  63. URM -- You're annoying, not threatening. And, if for one second I believed I had any moral equivalence with you, I'm not sure I'd choose to keep on living.

    Thank you BAD but I lost my purity, I fear, long ago.

    ANTI -- Yes, I'm against banning books for kids. I do expect teachers and librarians to exercise judgement but using a very wide latitude. I also do think that libraries should, when possible, stick books that promote positive views of homosexuality. And I agree generally w/your pt about parents but not all parents have the same ability to find and buy books as I, and maybe you, do.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 09/30/2009 @ 10:49am

  64. Posted by JakobFabian at 09/29/2009 @ 9:56pm:

    Without a mix of liberal/conservative banter, The Nation blogs would be pretty boring. Much better to duke it out even though the liberal view point is pretty lame. :)

    Posted by pyeatte at 09/29/2009 @ 11:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I agree with your first sentence. But I cannot condone the tilt toward anti-penguinism I am seeing develop here.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/30/2009 @ 12:03pm

  65. Posted by Peter Rothberg at 09/30/2009 @ 10:49am

    Keep in mind, PETER. Antisoc/Larry thinks that parents should have the right to let their 10 year old children work in un-safe coal mines "if they want to".

    Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 12:04pm

  66. 'Do you believe that parents have any rights concerning their children's reading matter?' -- antisocialist

    'I do expect teachers and librarians to exercise judgement but using a very wide latitude.' -- Peter Rothberg

    From the American Library Association website:

    'Can't parents tell the librarian what material they don't think children should have?

    Decisions about what materials are suitable for particular children should be made by the people who know them best--their parents or guardians.

    Children mature at different rates. They have different backgrounds and interests. And they have different reading levels and abilities. For instance, a video that one 10-year-old likes may not interest another. Or parents may feel a particular library book is inappropriate for their daughter, while the same book may be a favorite of her classmate's family. These factors make it impossible for librarians to set any criteria for restricting use based on age alone. To do so would keep others who want and need materials from having access to them.

    Like adults, children and teenagers have the right to seek and receive the information that they choose. It is the right and responsibility of parents to guide their own family's library use while allowing other parents to do the same.

    Librarians are not authorized to act as parents. But they are happy to provide suggestions and guidance to parents and youngsters at any time.' -- http://www.ala.org /ala/issuesadvocacy /banned/challenges librarymaterials/ essentialpreparation /kidslibraries/index.cfm

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/30/2009 @ 12:35pm

  67. Urmy's Bible example is a good one. I think the point would be who says what should be banned and what shouldn't. Gay Lifestyles today and Heterosexual Lifestyles tomorrow.

    Once you create a process who will control it. It may not always be someone you agree with.

    Posted by !immutable at 09/30/2009 @ 1:21pm

  68. There is ZERO evidence of homosexuality in animals.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 9:06pm

    ....................................

    From 'THE MEDICAL NEWS' 10/23/06

    Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.

    "We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."

    Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.

    When you see a colony of black-headed gulls, you can be sure that almost every tenth pair is lesbian. The females have no problems with being impregnated, although, according to Petter Boeckman they cannot be defined as bisexual.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/30/2009 @ 1:25pm

  69. "This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual."

    You mean ducks can marry who they want but people can't?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 1:37pm

  70. Yes. I performed a mass marriage ceremony just like the good reverend Sun Myung Moon. A whole colony of ducks!

    Rush Limbaugh was paddling around offshore with a megaphone, shouting at these poor birds, calling them 'socialists' and other dirty words. The ducks left a little doo doo on his head, but otherwise it was a peaceful gathering.

    So much for the ZERO evidence. Why don't people use the damn google function? It would save a lot of unnecessary posting. Including mine! I don't think ducks read much, so I'm a little off topic here.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/30/2009 @ 2:01pm

  71. Posted by Peter Rothberg at 09/30/2009 @ 10:49am

    Keep in mind, PETER. Antisoc/Larry thinks that parents should have the right to let their 10 year old children work in un-safe coal mines "if they want to".

    Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 12:04pm

    Urmy is right, conservatives own Mask!

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 2:03pm

  72. Urmy is right, conservatives own Mask! Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 2:03pm

    Nonsense. No more than Mask owns you guys. Notice how urmy has taken up masks use of 'heheh'. You have to love it.

    Everybody should listen to both sides. Just because he remembers what they say shouldn't be against some sort of blogging policy.

    The struggle here, it seems, is that both 'sides' are ever so reluctantly being dragged into the realization that the broken government doesn't fit ANY of our needs, and the only way to resolve this weird social dichotomy is, down at the end of this long black tunnel, to actually find that we have a common purpose and join forces. Yikes.

    And then we can resume the irrelevant bitching that we so enjoy. I have to say that I enjoy SOME of urmys postings, but he leaves teeth marks on everyone as well. Good or bad? You decide. It's Amerika!

    Posted by ficheye at 09/30/2009 @ 2:23pm

  73. Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 2:03pm

    Don't you even want to TRY to deny what I said about your position on child labor and coal mine safety, Larry??!?!??!?

    I mean, that's a pretty outrageous charge....makes you look like some kind of uncaring arch-libertarian looney tunes, doesn't it???

    Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 2:27pm

  74. What may be misleading about the Banned Books list and the interactive map is the information that is missing. I recently took a graduate class at Rutgers called "An Educator's Survey of Young Adult Literature." Many working librarians and School Media Specialists in this class had no qualms in professing a need to protect students from certain books, even in high school. In particular, the books "Doing It' by Melvin Burgess and "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist" by Rachel Cohn and David Levithan had some librarians claiming that they spoke for their communities in keeping these books off their shelves.

    Parents are not the only ones challenging books. The library community needs to take a look at itself too.

    Posted by pixelquarium at 09/30/2009 @ 2:33pm

  75. Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 2:03pm

    Don't you even want to TRY to deny what I said about your position on child labor and coal mine safety, Larry??!?!??!?

    I mean, that's a pretty outrageous charge....makes you look like some kind of uncaring arch-libertarian looney tunes, doesn't it???

    Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 2:27pm

    No, I have learned to just ignore when you go off on a tangent that takes away from the real discussions.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 2:37pm

  76. <There is ZERO evidence of homosexuality in animals.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 9:06pm

    Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/30/2009 @ 1:25pm>

    I stand by that statement

    This mythology that has been concocted by the left remains just that, mythology. While attempts like the book, Biological Exuberance attempt to create an impression that scientists have concluded that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom, even Bagemihl's book concludes that he doesn't know why they engage in the behavior.

    Of far better science is Biologist Professor Marlene Zuk's "Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex from Animals"

    Prof Zuk's conclusion about those who attempt to attribute animal behavior to human behaviors

    <"if we try to use animal behavior in a simplistic manner to reflect on human behavior, we will, in myriad ways, misperceive both.">

    http://tinyurl.com/ybquly6

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 2:52pm

  77. Further examination of so-called "animal homosexuality"

    <The reasoning behind the "animal homosexuality" theory can be summed up as follows:

    Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.

    Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.

    Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.

    Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.

    Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.

    This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?

    Clashing Stimuli and Confused Animal Instincts

    To explain this abnormal behavior, the first observation must be the fact that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical laws governing the mineral world. In varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances. They respond to internal or external stimuli.

    Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.>

    continued  

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 2:55pm

  78. more on exposing the myth of animal homosexuality

    <Third, an animal's instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal's behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse.

    In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.4 At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal's instinctive impulses result in cases of animal "filicide," "cannibalism" and "homosexuality.">

    From The "Animal Homosexuality" Myth by Luiz Sérgio

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 2:56pm

  79. http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/who-we-are/the-counter-revolution.html

    I did a little research on the author. The above link is to the organization he belongs, which automatically slants his opinion. Also I found nothing showing that he is in any way qualified to make scientific comments considering no where does it say he is a scientist of any sort. So we have to assume that his arguments are more of opinion and less of scientific fact. In which case it means his arguments are meaningless.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 3:49pm

  80. Also according to you Larry if we use any source that has a slight slant it must be a left or right wing lie so since this guy is a little more than just slightly slanted o the right we have to assume it is a right wing lie. Also parents DO kill kids. Some people ARE cannibals.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 3:51pm

  81. Also it is hilarious to me that you first post a comment saying we can't possibly know why animals do things. Then you post the evidence of someone who is not in anyway a qualified scientist who then proposes to tell us EXACTLY why all animals do the things they do. So what is it? We can't possibly know why animals in engage in homosexual activities or we know exactly why as Sergio seems to think he does. You can't have it both ways.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 3:53pm

  82. From The "Animal Homosexuality" Myth by Luiz Sérgio Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 2:56pm

    I didn't realize that the source I quoted from was espousing a 'leftist' point of view. That's a stretch, I feel.

    I think the jury is still out on this one.

    Google it, Barney. Is it possible, at the risk of sounding prejudiced, that Mr. Sergio is a good Catholic and easily offended by any suggestion of aberrant behaviors (including, but not limited to birth control)? Keep in mind that I'm not really an unquestioning proponent of gay rights. If I see another 'gay pride' march that includes leather clad S and M biker dudes I'm gonna scream. Regular parades don't include any of that. It further enforces the image of perversity that can only harm their agenda.

    But I'm on a tirade about gathering evidence for all sides before making a definitive assertion about a subject here. Just to stay topical I'll bet the animal homosexuality proponents are somewhere on the libraries banned suggestion list.

    As for the statement "...even Bagemihl's book concludes that he doesn't know why they engage in the behavior....", well, the same goes for the human version of homosexuality, so that statement works both ways.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/30/2009 @ 3:56pm

  83. Also I found nothing showing that he is in any way qualified to make scientific comments considering no where does it say he is a scientist of any sort. So we have to assume that his arguments are more of opinion and less of scientific fact. In which case it means his arguments are meaningless.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 3:49pm

    Also it is hilarious to me that you first post a comment saying we can't possibly know why animals do things. Then you post the evidence of someone who is not in anyway a qualified scientist who then proposes to tell us EXACTLY why all animals do the things they do. So what is it? We can't possibly know why animals in engage in homosexual activities or we know exactly why as Sergio seems to think he does. You can't have it both ways.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 3:53pm

    Re Luiz Sergio; I guess it's too much for you to look at the footnotes for his statements.

    Secondly and more importantly you completely ignore Prof Zuk who is a biologist and there is emminently qualified to posit conclusions from her research.

    And prof Zuk derives the same conclusion I have made that you cannot equate animal behavior with human behavior.

    Yet you only speak of Luiz Sergio. One can only conclude that you dislike any science that rebuts your viewpoint.

    I did not lead with Sergio, I added him as secondary because at least his article is footnoted for followup. I put prof Zuk first precisely because she is a credible authority.

    Let's have your factual debate on Prof Zuk's scientific arguments instead of your emotional rant.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 4:00pm

  84. And as for Professor Zuk, who's speciality is insects, crickets in particular...

    She's a far more credible resource than the other guy. She's what one might refer to as a 'convenient' feminist, but she comes at the topic at hand from a perspective that I can appreciate more.

    Good reinforcement. But...

    It still doesn't really lead one to believe that there is zero evidence. I'd say that it might be right to assume that even though there are examples of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom, we shouldn't use it as an example to reinforce the case for human homosexuality. That seems more cricket ; )

    Posted by ficheye at 09/30/2009 @ 4:41pm

  85. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 4:00pm </i>

    Let's get even more basic than that. You can't analyze whether "animal homosexuality" exists without defining the relevant terms.

    So here's the question to you, Larry:

    What is homosexuality?

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/30/2009 @ 4:47pm

  86. Let's have your factual debate on Prof Zuk's scientific arguments instead of your emotional rant.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 4:00pm

    "One can only conclude that you dislike any science that rebuts your viewpoint. "

    "Let's have your factual debate on Prof Zuk's scientific arguments instead of your emotional rant."

    This is a conclusion drawn from nothing. You should actually have evidence to make up your conclusions not just make assertions that make you look petty. Also I would say that the above post is based on emotional rant rather than factual debate. My rant wasn't emotional simply showing that you are not actually sticking to your argument but reaching everywhere and anywhere for a source that will back you up that homosexual are perverts.

    Now I will address why I chose Luis. It shows that you are not even sticking to the sources that back up your argument you are instead grasping for everyone and anyone who are saying what you want. Luis tries to show why homosexual behavior in humans is different from animals which is completely different from saying that we can't understand their actions.

    Now Professor Zuks comments are based on the assumptions that humans are above animals. We like to think we are somehow different. I don't have to post the studies of the many people who believe in evolution but the point is if we are descended from animals then our behaviors are simply more advanced forms of similar behavior. We exhibit many animal behaviors including infanticide and cannibalism yet we always write those off.

    http://tinyurl.com/yapoeac

    This article shows why animal behavior is suited to equate to human behavior as well.

    Continued.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 4:48pm

  87. What Professor Zuk is forgetting to mention is that animal behavior has already been used to analyze human behavior.

    "11. Research on animals has developed many of the important concepts relating to coping with stress, for example studies of the importance of prediction and control on coping behavior."

    "2. Research by de Waal on chimpanzees and monkeys has illustrated the importance of cooperation and reconciliation in social groups. This work provides new perspectives by which to view and ameliorate aggressive behavior among human beings."

    "4. Charles Darwin's work on emotional expression in animals has had an important influence on many psychologists, such as Paul Ekman, who study human emotional behavior."

    These people have already found ways to apply animal behavior to humans. We always like to think we are separate from them but our behaviors are just more advanced forms of theirs. Even down to the wars we fight for resources and territory. Everything we do besides abnormality is to secure things like survival, food and a mate. We can think on more advanced levels but animal behavior has been used to a long time to figure out humans. Just watch a group of monkeys and you can observe the basest forms of human interactions.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 4:53pm

  88. The difference between us and animals is that animals achieve survival of the species through actions coded to protect the individual. We have moved beyond that and now are actions achieve survival of the species through actions that are meant to directly affect a large amount of people or the entire species as a whole. You can name pretty much anything and I will be able to show you why that can be equated to survival of the species including religion and morality.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 5:07pm

  89. Aside from abnormalities of course like a mother killing her child which are abnormalities that appear in the animal kingdom too.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 5:09pm

  90. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 4:53pm

    Good work, Maynard! Especially appreciate the inclusion of the Darwin emotional expression studies.

    "...Just watch a group of monkeys and you can observe the basest forms of human interactions...."

    Like murder and cannibalism.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/30/2009 @ 5:11pm

  91. Good work, Maynard! Especially appreciate the inclusion of the Darwin emotional expression studies.

    "...Just watch a group of monkeys and you can observe the basest forms of human interactions...."

    Like murder and cannibalism.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/30/2009 @ 5:11pm

    I always find it funny when people believe us to be above animals. It's often the religious who like to posit that because we can act morally we are therefore above animals. But even moral behavior can be shown to be behavior that is beneficial to the survival of the species. Alongside what Hitler did, which to him was for the betterment of the species. The acts of Islamic Jihadists is supposed to be to purify the species. Christian morality is all about survival of the species, even down to the argument against homosexuality, abortions and contraceptives all arguments about the protection of the species.

    It's amazing that people choose to blind themselves to this. I'm sure Larry will say it is all non-sense but I bequieth him to think of even the most complicated acts of humanity, aside from ones that are obvious abnormalities and I will do my best to show why that act is predicated on the survival of the species.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 5:31pm

  92. The halfwit rev. doesn't believe in evolution, yet he wants people to give his cut and paste science credence? Uh, capt clusterbomb, it is an observable fact that animals of the same sex engage in sexual activity with each other- anything from monkey handjobs to full blown butthole blowing ANAL SEX. Homosexuality= same+ sexuality. Get a goddamn hammer and knock that through your thick skull.

    Posted by entropy at 09/30/2009 @ 5:53pm

  93. Why would you even give a rat's ass anyway, since according to you, humans are divine and thus are seperate from the rest of the animal kingdom. Is your animosity towards homosexuals so strong that you cannot even tolerate it amongst entities you and your magic fairytale book deem have no relationship to us?

    Posted by entropy at 09/30/2009 @ 5:56pm

  94. Let's get even more basic than that. You can't analyze whether "animal homosexuality" exists without defining the relevant terms.

    So here's the question to you, Larry:

    What is homosexuality?

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/30/2009 @ 4:47pm

    We have gone round and round on this aspect and my views remain the same.

    Homosexuality is the action(s) of a behavioral choice.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 6:30pm

  95. CCC,

    All of your responses continue the same theme, and one that has no basis in science....there is no evidence that places animals on the same level as human beings.

    Setting aside the biblical point that animals have no souls and thus cannot be made in the image of G-d, there are too many barriers for you to leap to get to such a stage of equality.

    You might just as well list the Planet of the Apes movies as any of the materials out there that are purely conjectural.

    And where in the world did you get this concept from that you posted?

    <Christian morality is all about survival of the species, even down to the argument against homosexuality, abortions and contraceptives all arguments about the protection of the species.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 5:31pm>

    Besides being over simplistic, it's just another assumption of yours made out of nowhere.

    The abortion debate is because we on the pro-life side believe that murder is not only wrong, but immoral.

    Most Christians understand that secular societies have different moral standards apart from submitting to G-d. Homosexuality is one of those, adultery another, sex outside of marriage is another. But they have nothing to do with trying to preserve the species as you state.

    As to contraception, there is a large divide among Christians on that subject. I am one who does not see it as a problem.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 6:38pm

  96. All of your responses continue the same theme, and one that has no basis in science....there is no evidence that places animals on the same level as human beings.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 6:38pm

    You don't even see that you are juggling two diamietrically opposite views. Essentially you are saying there is no science to prove man is the same as animals therefore man must be different despite the lack of evidence. Do you not see how that is a problematic view to take? It's like saying 1 does not equal 2 therefore 2 is not a number.

    Also you say there is no evidence to place animals on the level with humans. I am not moving animals up, I am moving humans down. I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that everything we do has to do with animal behavior simply from observing humans you can draw lines between our behavior and the animal kingdom. There is plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that humans are much the same as animals including the mounds of evidence in the case of evolution.

    "Besides being over simplistic, it's just another assumption of yours made out of nowhere. "

    If I am assuming then you are assuming the defense. That's the problem. Everything your morality is based on is an assumption. Not knowledge assumption. I am merely clarifying. I am merely pointing out the baseness of things. You assume that you are against abortion because you are against murder but that is assuming that a fetus is a human life. Now why do you come to that assumption because your religion tells you so. Why do they tell you so? That way a fetus is protected in order to increase the potential amount of people born.

    It's not really hard to draw the line between us and animals if you are willing to accept the truth.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 6:50pm

  97. "Besides being over simplistic, it's just another assumption of yours made out of nowhere. "

    All things being equal the simplest answer is generally the right one.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 6:52pm

  98. ...there is no evidence that places animals on the same level as human beings...

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 6:38pm

    Darwin's theories are accepted by many as just that evidence. We just happen to possess sentience... to a degree.

    Of course anyone can latch on to the 'theory' part of that statement in an attempt to invalidate it.

    But biblical history and belief in many of the miracles and other assertions that christians want to hold as truth - and that supposedly give humanity divine status - are still just that... a 'belief'.

    And 'belief', by definition, is something that someone accepts as a personal preference. It cannot be validated by actual proof. It is a visceral decision to 'believe'.

    Therefore it is also a theory and has exactly the same validity.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/30/2009 @ 7:03pm

  99. Rev. clusterbomb, there is enough scientific evidence linking humans to other animals to not just part the red sea, but fill it with scholarly tomes and peer reviewed journal articles. You simply choose to ignore sai evidence because your entire worldview is predicated upon the assumptions of 2000 year old farmers, shepards and peasants, transcribed myriad times through the ages, and filling exactly one book. That you even try to argue anything on a scientific basis is absurd at all levels.

    Posted by entropy at 09/30/2009 @ 7:07pm

  100. fich, I, and most biologists would argue that humans are far from the only sentient beings. Nearly all higher order mammals are self aware to some degree. Aside from that, excellent post.

    Posted by entropy at 09/30/2009 @ 7:11pm

  101. Therefore it is also a theory and has exactly the same validity.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/30/2009 @ 7:03p

    Well put.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 7:16pm

  102. If I am assuming then you are assuming the defense. That's the problem. Everything your morality is based on is an assumption. Not knowledge assumption. I am merely clarifying. I am merely pointing out the baseness of things. You assume that you are against abortion because you are against murder but that is assuming that a fetus is a human life. Now why do you come to that assumption because your religion tells you so. Why do they tell you so? That way a fetus is protected in order to increase the potential amount of people born.

    It's not really hard to draw the line between us and animals if you are willing to accept the truth.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 6:50pm

    the attempt to as you stated "lower humans to the animal level" is a calculated agenda to dismiss G-d. If there is no G-d, then certainly mankind could not be created in His image.

    But you have no means of substantiating your claim because science has no ability to accomplish that which you claim.

    What we do have is overwhelming anecdotal evidence on the huge gap between the animal kingdom and mankind.

    From speech to writing to complex construction, to the concept of morality, the gap between the animal kingdom is incapable of being closed to anything approaching commonality.

    And though you will probably dismiss this, it is precisely because we are created in the image of G-d that we transcend all of the animal kingdom. We have a creative capacity that nothing in the animal kingdom is capable of approaching.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 7:18pm

  103. Debating biology with rev clusterbomb is like a particle physicist try to explain the standard model to one of the apostles. There is just not enough accrued knowledge in either individual with regard to the subject to make the endeavor anything less than utterly futile. We are heading towards a world where a small elite of highly educated technocrats reigns supreme over vast seas of unwashed masses forever mired in a midieval mindset, trammeled for eternity by their fundamentalist religious faith. Capt cluster and the rest of the demographic he represents have more in common with the iranian clerics they deride than the modern, secular world whose science gives them the conveniences they so blithely take for granted.

    Posted by entropy at 09/30/2009 @ 7:21pm

  104. The Origin of Language and Communication

    © 2003  Brad Harrub, Ph.D., Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Dave Miller, Ph.D.

    By age four, most humans have developed an ability to communicate through oral language.  By age six or seven, most humans can comprehend, as well as express, written thoughts.  These unique abilities of communicating through a native language clearly separate humans from all animals.  The obvious question then arises, where did we obtain this distinctive trait?  Organic evolution has proven unable to elucidate the origin of language and communication.  Knowing how beneficial this ability is to humans, one would wonder why this skill has not evolved in other species.  Materialistic science is insufficient at explaining not only how speech came about, but also why we have so many different languages.  Linguistic research, combined with neurological studies, has determined that human speech is highly dependent on a neuronal network located in specific sites within the brain.  This intricate arrangement of neurons, and the anatomical components necessary for speech, cannot be reduced in such a way that one could produce a "transitional" form of communication. 

    In The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain, Terrance Deacon noted:

    ‘In this context, then, consider the case of human language.  It is one of the most distinctive behavioral adaptations on the planet.  Languages evolved in only one species, in only one way, without precedent, except in the most general sense.  And the differences between languages and all other natural modes of communicating are vast.'>

    http://www.trueorigin.org/language01.asp

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 7:27pm

  105. From speech to writing to complex construction, to the concept of morality, the gap between the animal kingdom is incapable of being closed to anything approaching commonality.

    And though you will probably dismiss this, it is precisely because we are created in the image of G-d that we transcend all of the animal kingdom. We have a creative capacity that nothing in the animal kingdom is capable of approaching.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 7:18pm

    I will approach these systematically.

    Complex Construction:

    Look at the hive of a bee. Or the termite mounds in Australia. Termites in Australia build their mounds in certain ways so that they efficiently guard against the heat of the sun. I don't know about you but that's pretty complicated.

    Speech:

    Rudimentary speech is displayed in all animals. They communicate using body language as well as vocal sounds. Speech is nothing more than sounds arranged to convey a message. If you ever watch to cat's that don't like each other interact you will see that they are capable of rudimentary forms of speech. Parrots are capable of not only mimicing humans but also of then using that language creatively. There was an interesting article in the Nation Geographic about a parrot who would mock other parrots by saying words wrong so that they would mess up and it could ask for things that it wanted. I would say that is speech.

    Writing:

    People have taught animals to paint. Which if you look at cave man times that is the root of modern writing.

    All the things you talk about are things that evolve over time. Just because animals do not have the degree of skill we have does not mean they are not capable of it as I have shown with every example you listed.

    Continued.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 7:30pm

  106. Now to the coup de gras of your points. Morality. You claim morality is central to humans only. I think there is enough evidence to show that

    A. Morality is simply actions taken to ensure the survival of the species. Name anything you claim to be a moral construct and I will show you how it is a response to increase the survival of the species.

    B. There is no scientific evidence to prove that morality is anymore than instinct codified with words.

    "But you have no means of substantiating your claim because science has no ability to accomplish that which you claim.

    What we do have is overwhelming anecdotal evidence on the huge gap between the animal kingdom and mankind."

    No we don't, we have theories put forth by some people who are arrogant. If I can't disprove the existence of God you can't prove it so there is no reason to bother bringing God into this. It's simple all behavior is just complicated forms of animal behavior. You specificed complex construction because you know that there are plenty of rudimentary pieces of construction by animals. Humans were not always so skilled. We once too built basic structures from the things around us. Why do you choose to blind yourself to that fact? Why do you choose to blind yourself to the fact that humans once spoke in grunts and wrote in pictures?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 7:36pm

  107. CCC- It is hopeless- mocking them can be quite entertaining, but so long as they cling to fundamentalist biblical inerrancy, rational discourse on any scientific subject is futile. I believe his own book says something about pearls before swine. Curious an infallible god never used a parable with an animal that actually exists not indigenous to eurasia or africa.

    Posted by entropy at 09/30/2009 @ 7:41pm

  108. we got talking donkeys! Where's all the fucking dancing llamas?! Shoddy work at best.

    Posted by entropy at 09/30/2009 @ 7:42pm

  109. Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 7:27pm

    Once again this is over estimation by people. They assume that because animals have yet to evolve the capacity for complex language they therefore cannot evolve the capactiy for complex language.

    "Languages evolved in only one species, in only one way, without precedent, except in the most general sense. And the differences between languages and all other natural modes of communicating are vast."

    Notice they said the ability for language EVOLVED in only one species. The reason language evolved in our species is because our species is physically weak. We have to work in groups and groups have to be coordinated. Language helps with coordination.

    Some scientist think that the reason language evolved had to do with eating. They think that because humans, once they learned how to cook, would sit around fires with each other eating they eventually starting learning to communicate with one another.

    I would posit that language is nothing more than an evolved form of the vocalizations of animals.

    http://www.scienceinschool.org/2007/issue6/ape

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_linguistics

    There is a whole filed based around the study of figuring out how language evolved. These scientist write it off with hubris but there is a whole field of people who would contend that they are wrong. That language evolved from the same primitive vocalizations we here in cats to the complex linked thoughts we can hear in parrots and humans.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 7:45pm

  110. Lv- you are wrong- snakes and donkeys can both talk! Haven't you ever read your own "infallible" book? How do you explain this obvious disparity? You believe every word of the bible to be the inerrant word of god. You have stated that humans are the only animal capable of language. The bible has talking snakes and donkeys. Therefore, either you or your dog is a liar, or the bible is not literally true. Which one is it dipshit?

    Posted by entropy at 09/30/2009 @ 7:53pm

  111. Lv- you are wrong- snakes and donkeys can both talk! Haven't you ever read your own "infallible" book? How do you explain this obvious disparity? You believe every word of the bible to be the inerrant word of god. You have stated that humans are the only animal capable of language. The bible has talking snakes and donkeys. Therefore, either you or your dog is a liar, or the bible is not literally true. Which one is it dipshit?

    Posted by entropy at 09/30/2009 @ 7:53pm

    To be fair the snake is not a talking snake. The snake is Satan in snake form.

    And the donkey was bequiethed the ability to speak by the Lord it was not an innate ability.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/30/2009 @ 8:18pm

  112. Wow...there's a lot of systematic framework issues here to deal with. Let me try and go through a bunch of them one by one because there's some strange stuff here.

    First, though, this from Larry:

    <<Setting aside the biblical point that animals have no souls and thus cannot be made in the image of G-d>>

    Whoah! Where does that one come from? And don't tell me the Genesis story, because it doesn't say animals have no souls, and I have no clue what else does.

    Then there's this bizarre argument from ficheye:

    <<Darwin's theories are accepted by many as just that evidence. We just happen to possess sentience... to a degree.

    Of course anyone can latch on to the 'theory' part of that statement in an attempt to invalidate it....'belief', by definition, is something that someone accepts as a personal preference. It cannot be validated by actual proof. It is a visceral decision to 'believe'. >>

    Ironically...I think this is wrong on both counts. First, a "theory" in a scientific context is not a synonym for hypothesis; it's a coherent logical framework that is put together to explain and analyze a set of observed facts. This is why the "evolution is just a theory" argument doesn't make any sense. I also don't think a "belief" is simply a personal preference, like wearing a red shirt or a green one. If Israel decided to annihilate the Palestinians and I opposed that, would that be no different than "eh, I don't like vanilla ice cream"?

    Finally, the idea that animals are categorically incapable of choice is plainly ridiculous unless you think every single animal is driven purely by instinct and biological drives. Our observation, especially for those who have had a pet, belies this odd claim.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/30/2009 @ 8:20pm

  113. thanks trip c- that makes SO much more sense.

    Posted by entropy at 09/30/2009 @ 8:29pm

  114. until you clarified that, it really freaked me the fuck out when my recliner told me to stop eating so many burritos and drinking so much delicious oaked arrogant bastard. Now I know its just satan speaking THROUGH my recliner. How could i have been so blind?

    Posted by entropy at 09/30/2009 @ 8:32pm

  115. Posted by entropy at 09/30/2009 @ 8:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Unless your were just being faciecious , Satan doesn't need your recliner if he's got you already! Of course you would know more about that than we would.

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/30/2009 @ 10:18pm

  116. CCC, I realize you embrace evolution wholeheartedly and I resepect your committment to it. But that doesn't make it true.

    Neither does my committment to Christianity in itself make my denial of your claims any more credible.

    <First, man and animals do not share kinship--all the claims of evolutionists (and those sympathetic to them) notwithstanding. The apostle Paul addressed this very point in 1 Corinthians 15 when he wrote: "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes" (v. 15, emp. added).

    As Stuart Walker correctly commented: "Genesis 1:26-30 and 2:7,21-25 clearly states that man was a special creation with no phylogenetic relationship to any other creature. Thus, there is a phylogenetic discontinuity between man and animals--we are not physically interrelated" (1991, 5[2]:21, emp. added). As Adam previewed the animals in the Garden of Eden for a mate and went about naming them (Genesis 2:18-20), this "discontinuity" became clear. Among all the animals that God had created, there was none that corresponded to him. Not one sufficed to remove him from his personal isolation of being "alone" (Genesis 2:18). As Walker went on to note:

    Thus, we share in the life principle, but it is not the life principle itself that is precious.... Ontological continuity cannot be established upon the experiences of life, the intrinsic value of life itself, or physical parallels between animals and humans; rather, we are separated from the animal world by an impassable gulf--a chasm of essential difference in who we are (1991, 5[2]:22, emp. added).

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/448

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 11:28pm

  117. Whoah! Where does that one come from? And don't tell me the Genesis story, because it doesn't say animals have no souls, and I have no clue what else does.

    Finally, the idea that animals are categorically incapable of choice is plainly ridiculous unless you think every single animal is driven purely by instinct and biological drives. Our observation, especially for those who have had a pet, belies this odd claim.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/30/2009 @ 8:20pm

    Give me an example of an animal that "chose" to disobey G-d or to obey G-d?

    The soul of man created in the image and likeness of G-d

    Genesis 1:26-27

    <Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[b] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them>

    the Lord speaking to the people through Jeremaiah the prophet

    <Yes, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will assuredly plant them in this land, with all My heart and with all My soul.'>

    We are created in his likeness, unlike the animal kingdom; with a soul

    Nowhere does G-d EVER consider animals to be His Children.

    I love my pets also, but they are endowed by G-d with an ability to serve mankind that is instinctual

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 11:44pm

  118. Do you even listen to yourself, Larry?

    People go on and on about actual observations, of actual people, watching actual animals engage in specific behaviors.

    They then try to hypothesize, within the given framework of known facts, why these animals behave that way.

    And then you, quote some bronze age sheppards, "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes".

    Snap! You showed them, huh? ...with their silly actual observations and logical hypothesizing...

    Your centuries old, oft translated "quote", by the way gives me no indication that humans are any further removed from other mammals than birds are from fishes. (not far BTW, in case you didn't know).

    Somehow this is supposed to stand as substantive argument? That is really the end of topic for you?

    Wow.

    Posted by Malcontent at 09/30/2009 @ 11:51pm

  119. Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 5:33pm

    Your comment made me think of this line from Ender's Game:

    "Children are a perpetual, self-renewing underclass, helpless to escape from the decisions of adults until they become adults themselves."

    As a librarian, I think I can shed a little light on this question for you. We have a professional code of ethics. Two point from it.

    II. "We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources."

    VII. "We distinguish between our personal convictions and professional duties and do not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with fair representation of the aims of our institutions or the provision of access to their information resources."

    When you work within a library, you have a full range of users. Some are adults. Some are young adults. Some are children. But given the wide variety of belief systems in any community, there is no way for a librarian to censor resources that meet a certain minimal standard.

    To say that censorship doesn't occur in public libraries is to lie. There's a reason you don't see copies of Hustler magazine in the periodical shelves. But, once you get into the realm where something is collected and legitimately read by someone that uses a library, you get into really problematic space when you start asking the librarian to decide who should be reading what.

    And this is the heart of the issue, if any 8th grader is mature enough to read a book, then who is to say a 6th grader can't? And that's not even getting into people that cannot understand that a book like Harry Potter is a work of fiction.

    The solution to this problem is to let children decide for themselves. And if you are worried about what your child reads, you censor it. It's not our job.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/30/2009 @ 11:55pm

  120. The solution to this problem is to let children decide for themselves. And if you are worried about what your child reads, you censor it. It's not our job.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/30/2009 @ 11:55pm

    Back to my question to peter.

    Do you agree with the ratings system for movies?

    Are there materials that you would not want your children to read or watch?

    Who should make that determination on what to read; libraries or parents?

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 12:39am

  121. Aside from that, excellent post. Posted by entropy at 09/30/2009 @ 7:11pm

    You know, it was lurking in the back of my mind. Some birds recognize themselves in a mirror, as well as apes, etc., and of course there are various other indicators of sentience. I should have said something about 'degrees of sentience'. Yeah, that's it!

    I was doing so well... damn.

    Now, about whether or not BigPasture is sentient... nah, that's gotta be on another thread....

    "Unless your were just being faciecious (sic) , Satan doesn't need your recliner if he's got you already! Of course you would know more about that than we would." Posted by BigPasture at 09/30/2009 @ 10:18pm

    This guy has a copy of 'Jesus camp' autographed by Ted Haggard, the 'completely heterosexual' pastor who just happens to like crystal meth. And who does he mean by 'we'?

    Posted by ficheye at 10/01/2009 @ 02:21am

  122. Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 12:39am

    The problem is your framing. The most important point is that libraries aren't forcing people to read. They make material available and the people using the library decide whether to check it out or not.

    You are also looking at it from the point of view of a parent of a single family rather than from the point of view of a librarian serving a specific population.

    Suppose I was a school media librarian working in a middle school. How do I collect books? Do I collect them based on the lowest common denominator and only purchase books that are safe for the most immature child? Or do I look for books that will appeal and challenge even the most mature of the library users? It is not uncommon for librarians to collect for the murky middle - because they play it safe, because they worry about their jobs, and by doing so, they don't do their jobs.

    Let's also imagine that there are two families. One family is deeply religious and finds any book that features witchcraft, vampires, etc. a problem. Another doesn't see any problem at all in their child reading His Dark Materials (#2 on the banned book list in 2008) and thinks it is good for their to read imaginative works featuring people their child's age and offers a "broad range of ideas from fields such as physics, philosophy, theology and spirituality." Buy it or not?

    You could go down the line for every topic. Does the kid that has a parent who is homosexual get to read about families like his? What about the fact that adolescence is a struggle to understand sexuality? Does that mean we avoid the topic because adolescent sexuality makes parents uncomfortable? What about a child that believe themselves to be gay? Do they get to read material that is relevant to them?

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/01/2009 @ 08:09am

  123. "I love my pets also, but they are endowed by G-d with an ability to serve mankind that is instinctual"-----Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 11:44pm

    So dogs and cats weren't domesticated, God created them to be our pets?

    Posted by Mask at 10/01/2009 @ 08:29am

  124. Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 12:39am

    Personally, I don't have a problem with a rating system as information. So, if a film gets a rating of PG-13 because it has explicit language, I think the reason for the rating is useful. The rating system itself is fundamentally flawed - as is explained in detail in the film, "This Film Is Not Yet Rated." I think coming up with a rating system to classify content based on typical child development patterns will have similar problems. Again, this is the parent's job.

    If your child wants to watch movies or read books that you don't want them to watch or read, I don't want to get in the middle of it. If it is appropriate to purchase for other people's children, then it needs to be in the library. If you want to censor your child, you do it. Don't expect your librarian to be your surrogate.

    I don't have children, so I can't honestly answer the hypothetical about what I may or may not censor. I'd like to think that I would talk with the child about the issues and go with what they decide for themselves - discussing it with them after if they decide to read/watch it.

    "Who should make that determination on what to read; libraries or parents?"

    Ultimately, the person doing the reading should make the determination - this is the heart of intellectual freedom. If there is some compelling reason in the case of a particular child for censorship, that's the parent's job, and they shouldn't be relying on the librarian to only make the material available they want their child to read - because their family isn't the only one the librarian serves.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/01/2009 @ 08:35am

  125. "Are there materials that you would not want your children to read or watch?"

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 12:39am

    Yes:

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 11:28pm

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 11:44pm

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/30/2009 @ 10:18pm

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/01/2009 @ 08:37am

  126. Posted by Peter Rothberg at 09/29/2009 @ 5:49pm

    If you are truly thinking about how to best enable people to filter comments, Slashdot.org provides an excellent example.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/29/2009 @ 5:57pm

    More likely he was thinking of censoring you because you weren't contributing meaningfully to the discussion. It's not that people don't like what you say, it's just that it is frequently off point - textbook production isn't banned books and talking about what gets actually published is a whole different kettle of corn.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 7:07pm

    Exactly. I certainly wouldn't want all children's intellectual freedom to be restrict to what LVL would want for his children.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 8:39pm

    No problem with your child reading the Quran? Just curious.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 9:06pm

    I think your central point is sound. Homosexuality in animals tells us very little about homosexuality in humans - the issue about sentience, God and what not just confuses the issue.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/01/2009 @ 09:06am

  127. There is discussion on this thread right now about animals......and maybe the degree of intelligence they possess.

    I DO know this.....I saw a picture once of Millie (Barbara Bush's dog when her husband George H.W. Bush was President) being "interviewed" by Larry King, and......

    There was absolutely NO question in my mind who was the more intelligent of the two, and it was not Larry King!

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/01/2009 @ 09:10am

  128. Posted by sjchermak at 10/01/2009 @ 09:10am

    Possibly....but then again, Millie would have been given her OWN show on Fox!

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 10/01/2009 @ 10:11am

  129. Mask,

    If you remember, Millie did "write" her own book, titled "Millie's Book", so I guess Millie preferred the print media rather than television.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/01/2009 @ 10:41am

  130. ...the issue about sentience, God and what not just confuses the issue. Posted by srjenkins at 10/01/2009 @ 09:06am

    A morning olive branch posting? The issue is... it wasn't the issue ; )

    Posted by ficheye at 10/01/2009 @ 11:34am

  131. f you remember, Millie did "write" her own book, titled "Millie's Book", so I guess Millie preferred the print media rather than television. Posted by sjchermak at 10/01/2009 @ 10:41am

    Wasn't that book banned? My librarian said they didn't have it.

    Posted by ficheye at 10/01/2009 @ 11:40am

  132. "If you remember, Millie did "write" her own book, titled "Millie's Book", so I guess Millie preferred the print media rather than television."----Posted by sjchermak at 10/01/2009 @ 10:41am

    Wow...puts her equal or better than...

    Sarah Palin!

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 10/01/2009 @ 12:34pm

  133. Back to my question to peter.

    Do you agree with the ratings system for movies?

    Are there materials that you would not want your children to read or watch?

    Who should make that determination on what to read; libraries or parents?

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 12:39am

    The difference is that all a child who want's to see a rated-R movie has to do is bring their parent to the movies with them to buy their ticket. So a parent can still make a choice as to whether they want their children to watch a movie.

    If a book is banned from the only library in your town you no longer have access to it. You would have to buy it instead of using the local resource. When I was a kid I read A LOT, my mom couldn't afford to keep me in books all the time. The library was an important resource to my education.

    You have framed your question in the wrong manner. You ask if parents should have the say in what children read or librarians. This makes it sound as if librarians are forcing kids to read these books. A library is simply a dispensary in the end. The parent still has the choice in what their child reads all they have to do is tell them they aren't allowed to read that. If your child listens to you they won't. When you force the library to ban books you are essentially saying I have no control over what my child thinks or does so it is YOUR responsibility to ban this material so they can't access it. That is an acknowledgment that you expect the library and the movie theaters to raise your children not yourself.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 12:36pm

  134. CCC, I realize you embrace evolution wholeheartedly and I resepect your committment to it. But that doesn't make it true.

    Neither does my committment to Christianity in itself make my denial of your claims any more credible.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 11:28pm

    Then we must agree to disagree until science proves animals think, animals evolve to the point of speaking or God is proven to be real.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 12:38pm

  135. Ultimately LVL by telling the library to censor material you are telling everything what their children are allowed to read not just yours. You are parenting for everyone. Essentially you are saying because I can't be bother to check up on what my kids are reading I will make sure that it is harder for everyone to get not just my kids. In turn you are parenting for everyone, not just yourself.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 12:42pm

  136. Posted by Thrawn at 09/30/2009 @ 8:20pm

    Wow. When you question someone's spiritual reality by bringing up the 'belief' issue things get deep. No offense, but I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

    It's a choice to believe in christianity. Deal with it. You weren't born with a belief in God - someone had to 'introduce' you to the concept. And when you make that choice you must also accept many other issues that differ with science and reality as pointed out by that science. Why are conservatives threatened by Harry Potter books when science tells us that sorcery is not real? You have only one guess. Belief, which unquestioningly accepts some things as a truth even though they can't be proven.

    Also, I never said, categorically, that animals did not possess any sentience at all, and I further amended that a couple of posts down the thread.

    If my posts seemed bizarre to you I think it's because you took offense to something there, something which threatens your belief. But I'll take bizarre.

    Posted by ficheye at 10/01/2009 @ 12:48pm

  137. ficheye,

    Ask your librarian to order it (Millie's Book)...or purchase it on Amazon.com, or, send a letter to Barbara Bush (Millie has passed on now) and I am sure she would be glad to send you a copy.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/01/2009 @ 1:25pm

  138. <i>Posted by ficheye at 10/01/2009 @ 12:48pm </i>

    First off...no worries, I'm not offended, just slightly puzzled at points. Second, antisocialist was the one I was responding to on animal sentience; I never meant to attribute that argument to you.

    I'm very surprised by your position that a belief is a personal choice one makes and nothing else because it seemed flatly inconsistent with what you had said on other threads (which is why I brought out the Palestinian example). I guess a couple of clarifications are in order:

    1) When you said "belief," were you just talking about religious beliefs, or were you speaking more broadly about truths that we affirm (ex: killing is wrong)?

    2) When you said that belief is nothing more than a personal choice, did you mean to say that it has no more significance than vanilla ice cream v. rocky road?

    I ask these because I want to make sure I clarify your position before delving too far into it.

    Relatedly, on the evolution point, I stand by my argument concerning it as "theory." Your post seemed to conflate "theory" and "hypothesis," and I wanted to head that off because it's often a weapon used by those who want to dismiss evolutionary theory as "just another speculation" when it's nothing of the kind.

    <i>Posted by antisocialist at 09/30/2009 @ 11:28pm

    As Stuart Walker correctly commented: "Genesis 1:26-30 and 2:7,21-25 clearly states that man was a special creation with no phylogenetic relationship to any other creature. >

    If by this he means that man has no genetic connection to the animal kingdom...his statement is patently false unless you're prepared to reject all of genetics. Moreover...there's NO statement against animals getting to heaven anywhere, and animals do not operate solely on instinct.

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/01/2009 @ 3:29pm

  139. Posted by Thrawn at 10/01/2009 @ 3:29pm

    Keep in mind, Larry has posted on the "We do NOT have 98% DNA similarity to chimps" issue and the theory that Neanderthals were "some form of upright ape"....

    because ANY hint at Mankind (Cro-Magnon to today) not being "specialty special" is against his religion....sole basis for his "science".

    Posted by Mask at 10/01/2009 @ 3:43pm

  140. Posted by Thrawn at 10/01/2009 @ 3:29pm

    1. I was talking about religious belief. Sorry if that wasn't made clear. It is my feeling that certain western christian religious schools of thought are too complex and based on literal belief in the bible. I think this is the root of my annoyance with that topic. It's a personal issue that I need to be able to outline better. When I respond to an individual about it I don't always make a good general statement.

    2. Talking about the personal choice... no, I think that it involves more of a deep commitment and thought process than that. Maybe the way I put it was not as well thought out as it could have been. It's an important decision in a persons life to say 'I believe' something and then do the diligence to be able to support your claims. Larry seems to believe in some of the darker parts of biblical teaching which I am always in conflict with, like how he believes Jesus is for violence in some instances, so it gets me going. I think that the bible is mostly parable. I'm annoyed to find that Origen himself has been thought to have deleted references that say Jesus may have believed in reincarnation, but all the parable is left in. So, in my mind, the documents of the bible have been manipulated to attempt to form a school of thinking that involves fear, especially with the addition of the revelations. I become sarcastic about that type of religious belief.

    To clarify my own feelings... I am one of those who chooses (!) to believe in a higher power, but I am also a firm believer in evolutionary theory as well... let's get that straight right now.

    Posted by ficheye at 10/01/2009 @ 4:21pm

  141. <i>Posted by ficheye at 10/01/2009 @ 4:21pm</i>

    First, on the higher power + evolutionary theory thing...I'm right along with you in that I don't think that God and evolution are even remotely mutually exclusive, though I suspect I tilt more in the direction of conventional Christian theology (with some exceptions) as far as my beliefs about God are concerned.

    Second, on the belief stuff...I definitely agree with you on the part about depth of committment. I don't think belief is a trivial thing, and I think it does involve living your beliefs out as well as affirming them intellectually. I'm still not sure, though, that's it's really a choice; I can't look at the tan building across from me and choose to believe that it's bright pink, nor could I really choose to believe that there really isn't a God after all. I think that in a lot of cases, we're more or less impelled towards certain beliefs, not just because of upringing, but also because those beliefs resonate with us, whether because of reason or intuition (both of which, I think, are valid foundations).

    <i>Posted by Mask at 10/01/2009 @ 3:43pm </i>

    If he makes the claim again, I will continue to argue that it's false...but the interesting thing is, the article he posts actually gives him an even HIGHER burden. He has now put himself in the position of showing that there's NO genetic continuity between humans and the animal kingdom, and I don't see any way in which he'll remotely be able to do that.

    Finally...respondingto Cccomf1. Why is morality simply "that which is adapted to help the species" and am unclear on the foundation upon which that claim rests. This may be simplistic...but I'm fairly sure that the "selfish gene" idea applies to individuals...there's no "collective gene" of a species.

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/01/2009 @ 4:32pm

  142. Why is morality simply "that which is adapted to help the species" and am unclear on the foundation upon which that claim rests. This may be simplistic...but I'm fairly sure that the "selfish gene" idea applies to individuals...there's no "collective gene" of a species.

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/01/2009 @ 4:32pm

    I think that human's act selfishly but because of our higher order brain we can act toward the group. Think about it this way. What are the basic human morals. Don't kill, this is obvious why this helps the whole. Don't steal, in nature the theft of food can equal the death of the individual stolen from so in order to protect the number it is better to not steal. Those are the two most basic moral's.

    Now let's bring in Christian morality. Don't covet thy neighbors wife. Well if you steal there mate they are less likely to have children and therefore reduce the overall amount of children born. Don't covet thy neighbors things. Well simply put coveting is only one step from stealing. Respect your mother and father. That allows people to pass down the same moral codes so that their children are just as likely to follow so on and so forth.

    I don't think anything humans do is above the higher order version of instinct. If we look at anything an animal does it is done simply to advance the species. There can only be a limited number of animals in an area so you need to make sure the ones there are the strongest. Humans due to our advanced building techniques and adaptability are only limited by global or maybe one day solar system resources so in turn our method of advancing the species is equally more complicated.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 4:50pm

  143. I have never advocated that people should not be free to practice homosexuality. Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 9:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --at first blush one wants to say "that's an awkward way to put it"

    but then, one realizes, Larry must say "practice" homosexuality because he can't say "be" homosexual.

    it'd be much harder to justify being a homophobe if one admitted that people are gay, rather than saying some people are merely choosing to have gay sex.

    think of it this way: would it not sound odd to say "people should be free to practice heterosexuality"

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 8:47pm

  144. antisocialist: "Most Christians understand that secular societies have different moral standards apart from submitting to G-d. Homosexuality is one of those, adultery another, sex outside of marriage is another."

    --Larry, you seem to always find a way to site a source or sources to back up your points.

    So, I have a statement and a question.

    My statement: Christians in this country engage in gay sex, adultery, and sex outside of marriage (which, when one thinks about it, adultery falls under this category too; but I know what you meant, you meant sex w/out being married).

    So, anyway, what are the statistics on % of Christians in this country who engage in those behaviors.

    Also, since you didn't mention it; I'll add it; how many Christians in this country take advantage of the secular option of divorce? Everyone knows the general statistic that 50% of 1st marriages in this country end in divorce. What percent of that 50% are Christians?

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 8:56pm

  145. <i>Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 4:50pm </i>

    I don't deny that many moral systems use rules as some basic foundations, but I don't think it stops there. Not to be too blunt, but I'd ask you to take another look at the New Testament. It's not just about making sure the community can survive, it's about making sure that the community and its people can thrive and experiencea the joy they were meant to experience. This comes partly by anchoring themselves on a solid foundation and opening themselves up to give and experience grace in ways that our minds often refuse to contemplate much less actualize. This isn't just about a "selfish gene," it's not just about making sure the community survives, and it's not even just about making sure we can maximize pleasure and minimize pain. It's about realizing the deeper goods in life that pale substitutes like greed and self-absorption have a disturbing tendency to smother and conceal.

    That doesn't mean Christians will be better than everyone else; all of us are fallible human beings and all of us screw up. In fact, I once heard someone say that if you're looking to find models of family values in the Bible, you will often fail. Why? Because the story isn't about good people who we want to imitate, it's about how God uses messy people to help bring about his kingdom. Forgive the theology soapbox, but I thought that part was necessary.

    Plus, for bonus points, I can make it relevant. We're made with minds and I believe we're called to use them. One of censorship's biggest dangers is that it puts others in the positino of using them for us and telling us what ideas we simply shouldn't hear. That's not Caesar's job. To paraphrase and alter a puzzling Biblical verse...that's not Caesar's job.

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/01/2009 @ 9:49pm

  146. Santi-A person is born homosexual not developed into one. Let everyone have open eyes.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/01/2009 @ 9:58pm

  147. Posted by srjenkins at 10/01/2009 @ 09:06am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --so why aren't you being threated to be censored? I mean, within that same post (where you responded to me)...you responded to 4 or 5 other people...most of which was NOT on topic or germane to the blog above.

    the double standards around here are laughable.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 10:02pm

  148. Why is morality simply "that which is adapted to help the species" and am unclear on the foundation upon which that claim rests. This may be simplistic...but I'm fairly sure that the "selfish gene" idea applies to individuals...there's no "collective gene" of a species. Posted by Thrawn at 10/01/2009 @ 4:32pm

    --very simple: we're social "animals" and it's much easier to get things done with help rather than alone. survival doesn't equal selfishness.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 10:16pm

  149. <i>Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 10:16pm </i>

    Actually, it does equal selfishness so long as that selfishness won't impede your survival. For instance, if you can do selfish things without getting discovered, a morality based solely on a "selfish gene" would have no problem with it.

    A morality anchored around the "selfish gene" would also have no relation whatsoever to quality of life. If the only thing the selfish gene is concerned about is continuing to propagate descendants, what use would there be for anything beyond that required to avoid suicide or allow reasonable productivity? For that matter, what basis could you logically have for saying that anything is actually good or actually bad if morality is nothing more than an extension of genetic selection?

    In short, your argument only seems to work is morality= "working together."

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/01/2009 @ 10:44pm

  150. Thrawn, I think it's fair to say at some point in your life you were paid by the word...and the habit stuck.

    there's no "selfish gene" or "collective gene"...you're making both of these up.

    people are social animals (look at us now--what are either of us gaining from this?)

    rules are based on what works...and they've come the hard way: trial-and-error.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 11:24pm

  151. Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 10:02pm

    "...the double standards around here are laughable."

    The standard is meaningful contribution. Steering a conversation on banned books into problems of censorship in what gets published is hijacking the discussion (and yes, I've done it too - but I try not to make it a habit). At least animal homosexuality is related to the reasons why these books were challenged in the first place.

    Personally, I think censoring is stupid. What is needed is good information on quality and content that enables people to filter for themselves - and that applies to books and to comments on web sites. I'd certainly much rather be able to see your good posts that reach a certain standard than have to make a choice between seeing or not seeing your posts.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 11:24pm

    Thrawn makes good comments - logical, well thought out. He definitely comes from the school of rules come from principles - not created ad hoc from circumstances.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/02/2009 @ 12:12am

  152. Thrawn makes good comments - logical, well thought out. He definitely comes from the school of rules come from principles - not created ad hoc from circumstances.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/02/2009 @ 12:12am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --the "principles" to him come from God. No amount of logical argumentation will be enough to prove himself correct.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 07:20am

  153. Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 07:20am

    My reading of his 10/01/2009 @ 9:49pm post is that the New Testament sets forth principles necessary for human flourishing. You don't need to believe in God or in the Bible as a divinely inspired piece of writing to argue for or against that position.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/02/2009 @ 08:17am

  154. how is ignoring God possible in the New Testament? the rules are all there for one purpose: to serve God; so that man will be "saved" after he dies. how can you extract God from a text that purports to be all about God?

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 09:35am

  155. <i>Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 11:24pm </i>

    First off, I didn't come up with the term "selfish gene"...Richard Dawkins did.

    Second...is your argument really that moral principles are only defined in terms of what "works"? One, "works"...for what? For what goal, what purpose? Two, are you saying there aren't any moral notions that AREN'T strictly utilitarian?

    On my standard for morality...I definitely tend to think that God is the anchor of morality in this sense: His existence and nature is the anchor that makes a moral framework coherent. It's not that you have to believe in God to be moral, not at all. Rather, I'm saying that God's existence provides a crucial piece that makes the statement "X is wrong" make sense.

    More broadly, I don't think ANY moral theory lacks foundational premises, and I sincerely doubt that many if any of those premises can be rigorously proven. That's why I tend to think that without teleology (in the sense of "telos," a purpose or goal), moral theory is meaningless.

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/02/2009 @ 1:55pm

Peter Rothberg Peter Rothberg

Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.

Archives

  1. February 2010

  2. January 2010

  3. December 2009

  4. November 2009

  5. October 2009

  6. September 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Facing Bipartisan Criticism, RNC's Steele Asks If Race Is Factor | "Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?” he wonders. Maybe he could compare notes with Obama.
John Nichols
Posted 24 minutes ago

» Editor's Cut

New Web Column at The Washington Post | Every Tuesday, I'll be featuring progressive thinking about politics and challenging the Right in my new web column for The Washington Post. Read my first one here.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
16 Comments
Posted at 4:52 PM ET

» The Notion

When Snow Melts: Vancouver’s Olympic Crackdown | Anger is growing in Vancouver in advance of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Like Olympic clockwork, here comes the media crackdown.
Dave Zirin
34 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

The Mind-Boggling Stupidity of Michael Rubin | How an AEI apparatchik's love affair for Ahmed Chalabi blinds him to Chalabi's pro-Iran treachery.
Robert Dreyfuss
25 Comments

» Act Now!

Demand Question Time | Join the call for the President and Congress to implement regular Question Time sessions.
Peter Rothberg
54 Comments

» And Another Thing

How to Counterbalance Focus on the Family on Superbowl Sunday | Give to help low income girls and women.
Katha Pollitt
54 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | James O'Keefe and Alter-reviews.
Eric Alterman