| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
06 Aug 2007 07:30:06 AM |
| Object: |
rape is good for evolution |
Reaction to two scientists' argument that rape is a product of human
evolution was swift and, in some cases, furious.
Much of the fury came from the scientific community as well as from
feminist and rape victim assistance groups, but at least one
representative of the latter found the theory by University of New Mexico
biologist Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer
thought-provoking.
Jennifer Beeman, director of the Campus Violence Protection Program at the
University of California-Davis, said she instinctively read the article as
"dangerous." But after the third reading, she said, "Some of it rang true,
and intuitively it sounds right."
Beeman, who has counseled more than 1,000 rape victims, said she hopes the
article and book will force scientists, social scientists, women's
organizations and rape experts to do some soul-searching.
"For so long our mantra has been 'It's about power, not sex,"' she said,
"that I think we're afraid to admit it might be about both."
A director of a rape counseling and prevention center weighed in on the
opposite side.
"It stopped me cold in my tracks," said Lynn Blanco, executive director of
the Rape Crisis Center in San Antonio, Texas. "I'm incensed by the article."
Blanco said she fears that if the article and its arguments are taken
seriously, "men will have a reason to rape, that rape in a sense will be
validated."
The center's director for crisis intervention, Dee Sisenberg said, "These
men are giving rapists an excuse to rape. Rapists will have an easy out
because Darwinian theory says 'I can't get away from my roots.'"
She said frank prevention efforts, aimed at both young men and women,
might set new standards in understanding "our strong biological and sexual
impulses" without either excusing rapists or burdening victims.
She said she plans to copy the article and distribute it to members of her
program's Sexual Assault Response Team for discussion.At the Feminist
Majority Foundation, spokeswoman Julie Bernstein called the paper
"interesting but scary." She suggested it could be seen as regressive
because it "almost validates the crime and blames the victim."
jabriol
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is good for evolution |
30 Aug 2007 10:53:19 AM |
|
|
On 6 aug, 14:30, wrote:
Reaction to two scientists' argument that rape is a product of human
evolution was swift and, in some cases, furious.
Much of the fury came from the scientific community as well as from
feminist and rape victim assistance groups, but at least one
representative of the latter found the theory by University of New Mexico
biologist Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer
thought-provoking.
Jennifer Beeman, director of the Campus Violence Protection Program at the
University of California-Davis, said she instinctively read the article as
"dangerous." But after the third reading, she said, "Some of it rang true,
and intuitively it sounds right."
Beeman, who has counseled more than 1,000 rape victims, said she hopes the
article and book will force scientists, social scientists, women's
organizations and rape experts to do some soul-searching.
"For so long our mantra has been 'It's about power, not sex,"' she said,
"that I think we're afraid to admit it might be about both."
A director of a rape counseling and prevention center weighed in on the
opposite side.
"It stopped me cold in my tracks," said Lynn Blanco, executive director of
the Rape Crisis Center in San Antonio, Texas. "I'm incensed by the article."
Blanco said she fears that if the article and its arguments are taken
seriously, "men will have a reason to rape, that rape in a sense will be
validated."
The center's director for crisis intervention, Dee Sisenberg said, "These
men are giving rapists an excuse to rape. Rapists will have an easy out
because Darwinian theory says 'I can't get away from my roots.'"
She said frank prevention efforts, aimed at both young men and women,
might set new standards in understanding "our strong biological and sexual
impulses" without either excusing rapists or burdening victims.
She said she plans to copy the article and distribute it to members of her
program's Sexual Assault Response Team for discussion.At the Feminist
Majority Foundation, spokeswoman Julie Bernstein called the paper
"interesting but scary." She suggested it could be seen as regressive
because it "almost validates the crime and blames the victim."
jabriol
As mutual consent happens much more than rape, it is obvious that rape
does not provide greater benefits for evolution. It is also clear that
it does not have such great deficits that the tendency to practice it
has become extinct.
Even if there were evolutionary benefits, that is no excuse,
and it s also very improbable that a scientific theory - false or true
- will have much influence over the behavior of - possible - rapists.
Peter van Velzen
August 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is good for evolution |
07 Aug 2007 10:41:31 AM |
|
|
On Aug 6, 8:30 am, wrote:
Reaction to two scientists' argument that rape is a product of human
evolution was swift and, in some cases, furious.
Much of the fury came from the scientific community as well as from
feminist and rape victim assistance groups, but at least one
representative of the latter found the theory by University of New Mexico
biologist Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer
thought-provoking.
Jennifer Beeman, director of the Campus Violence Protection Program at the
University of California-Davis, said she instinctively read the article as
"dangerous." But after the third reading, she said, "Some of it rang true,
and intuitively it sounds right."
Beeman, who has counseled more than 1,000 rape victims, said she hopes the
article and book will force scientists, social scientists, women's
organizations and rape experts to do some soul-searching.
"For so long our mantra has been 'It's about power, not sex,"' she said,
"that I think we're afraid to admit it might be about both."
As well you should be. Somebody is going to actually challenge your
pet assumptions with scientific theories?
Maybe if you'd actually done your homework yourself to get a solid
scientific basis in the first place you wouldn't have to be nervous
now.
A director of a rape counseling and prevention center weighed in on the
opposite side.
"It stopped me cold in my tracks," said Lynn Blanco, executive director of
the Rape Crisis Center in San Antonio, Texas. "I'm incensed by the article."
Blanco said she fears that if the article and its arguments are taken
seriously, "men will have a reason to rape, that rape in a sense will be
validated."
So what she is saying is that we should judge the validity of theories
of social evolution and human development based on the criteria of
whether we like the consequences or not. The actual truth of the
arguments is irrelevant.
Sorry, scientists, but your theory of human evolution cannot be taken
seriously because Lynn Blanco doesn't like the message it would send
if it were.
So come up with a new theory. And this time, try to construct your
theory with a little be less truth and evidence in mind, and a little
more sensitivity towards womens' issues instead.
The center's director for crisis intervention, Dee Sisenberg said, "These
men are giving rapists an excuse to rape. Rapists will have an easy out
because Darwinian theory says 'I can't get away from my roots.'"
So Dee here says the same thing. Truth is irrelevant. The message is
what is important.
This is positively Orwellian.
I remember in his book 1984 the Ministry of Truth was "updating" the
history books to reflect the current political situation.
These people want to do exactly the same thing.
She said frank prevention efforts, aimed at both young men and women,
might set new standards in understanding "our strong biological and sexual
impulses" without either excusing rapists or burdening victims.
She said she plans to copy the article and distribute it to members of her
program's Sexual Assault Response Team for discussion.At the Feminist
Majority Foundation, spokeswoman Julie Bernstein called the paper
"interesting but scary." She suggested it could be seen as regressive
because it "almost validates the crime and blames the victim."
It's regressive because it validates the crime and blames the
victim?!
Again, people, it is a scientific theory. It's either true or it
isn't based on the evidence. Is that concept too difficult? You
cannot decide whether a theory is true or not based on how it makes
you feel or how much you like it. Evolution is evolution.
It's just absurd. Not a single one of these feminists questioned the
truth of the theory based on it having faulty assumptions, evidence,
or lines of reasoning. They all simply invalidated it because they
didn't like it. It didn't agree with their view of how they want
society to be, therefore it cannot be taken seriously.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is good for evolution |
08 Aug 2007 07:57:10 AM |
|
|
On Aug 7, 8:41 am, wrote:
On Aug 6, 8:30 am, wrote:
Reaction to two scientists' argument that rape is a product of human
evolution was swift and, in some cases, furious.
Much of the fury came from the scientific community as well as from
feminist and rape victim assistance groups, but at least one
representative of the latter found the theory by University of New Mexico
biologist Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer
thought-provoking.
Jennifer Beeman, director of the Campus Violence Protection Program at the
University of California-Davis, said she instinctively read the article as
"dangerous." But after the third reading, she said, "Some of it rang true,
and intuitively it sounds right."
Beeman, who has counseled more than 1,000 rape victims, said she hopes the
article and book will force scientists, social scientists, women's
organizations and rape experts to do some soul-searching.
"For so long our mantra has been 'It's about power, not sex,"' she said,
"that I think we're afraid to admit it might be about both."
As well you should be. Somebody is going to actually challenge your
pet assumptions with scientific theories?
Maybe if you'd actually done your homework yourself to get a solid
scientific basis in the first place you wouldn't have to be nervous
now.
A director of a rape counseling and prevention center weighed in on the
opposite side.
"It stopped me cold in my tracks," said Lynn Blanco, executive director of
the Rape Crisis Center in San Antonio, Texas. "I'm incensed by the article."
Blanco said she fears that if the article and its arguments are taken
seriously, "men will have a reason to rape, that rape in a sense will be
validated."
So what she is saying is that we should judge the validity of theories
of social evolution and human development based on the criteria of
whether we like the consequences or not. The actual truth of the
arguments is irrelevant.
Sorry, scientists, but your theory of human evolution cannot be taken
seriously because Lynn Blanco doesn't like the message it would send
if it were.
So come up with a new theory. And this time, try to construct your
theory with a little be less truth and evidence in mind, and a little
more sensitivity towards womens' issues instead.
The center's director for crisis intervention, Dee Sisenberg said, "These
men are giving rapists an excuse to rape. Rapists will have an easy out
because Darwinian theory says 'I can't get away from my roots.'"
So Dee here says the same thing. Truth is irrelevant. The message is
what is important.
This is positively Orwellian.
I remember in his book 1984 the Ministry of Truth was "updating" the
history books to reflect the current political situation.
These people want to do exactly the same thing.
She said frank prevention efforts, aimed at both young men and women,
might set new standards in understanding "our strong biological and sexual
impulses" without either excusing rapists or burdening victims.
She said she plans to copy the article and distribute it to members of her
program's Sexual Assault Response Team for discussion.At the Feminist
Majority Foundation, spokeswoman Julie Bernstein called the paper
"interesting but scary." She suggested it could be seen as regressive
because it "almost validates the crime and blames the victim."
It's regressive because it validates the crime and blames the
victim?!
Again, people, it is a scientific theory. It's either true or it
isn't based on the evidence. Is that concept too difficult? You
cannot decide whether a theory is true or not based on how it makes
you feel or how much you like it. Evolution is evolution.
It's just absurd. Not a single one of these feminists questioned the
truth of the theory based on it having faulty assumptions, evidence,
or lines of reasoning. They all simply invalidated it because they
didn't like it. It didn't agree with their view of how they want
society to be, therefore it cannot be taken seriously.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You need to read Howard Bloom's book "The Lucifer Principle" before
you say stupid things about something being either "good" or "bad" for
evolution. Adaptation isn't about good or bad, it either produces a
survival advantage or it does not.
I doubt that Homo Habilis even had any such concept as "rape". And
without an understanding of the concept of "rape" - the crime of rape
doesn't actually occur. It's like cannibalism. We know that
cannibalism was part of human evolution too.
Bloom asserts that many behaviors that are now considered disgusting
and even criminal were once adaptive behaviors that are now no longer
so. In fact, those behaviors are now maladaptive - because evolution
isn't stagnant, it's dynamic.
So there really isn't anything to get worked up about - except if some
idiot tries to use this theory to justify what has evolved into modern
criminal "rape". Then we will need to introduce him into another
marvelous adaptive tool called the 9MM.
The human species evolved civilization by developing increasingly more
sophisticated systems of cooperation and communication. Part of that
evolutionary leap from caves to cities involved the constantly
changing ideas about the self and individuality.
Cat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is good for evolution |
08 Aug 2007 09:03:34 AM |
|
|
On Aug 8, 5:57 am, wrote:
On Aug 7, 8:41 am, wrote:
On Aug 6, 8:30 am, wrote:
Reaction to two scientists' argument that rape is a product of human
evolution was swift and, in some cases, furious.
Much of the fury came from the scientific community as well as from
feminist and rape victim assistance groups, but at least one
representative of the latter found the theory by University of New Mexico
biologist Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer
thought-provoking.
Jennifer Beeman, director of the Campus Violence Protection Program at the
University of California-Davis, said she instinctively read the article as
"dangerous." But after the third reading, she said, "Some of it rang true,
and intuitively it sounds right."
Beeman, who has counseled more than 1,000 rape victims, said she hopes the
article and book will force scientists, social scientists, women's
organizations and rape experts to do some soul-searching.
"For so long our mantra has been 'It's about power, not sex,"' she said,
"that I think we're afraid to admit it might be about both."
As well you should be. Somebody is going to actually challenge your
pet assumptions with scientific theories?
Maybe if you'd actually done your homework yourself to get a solid
scientific basis in the first place you wouldn't have to be nervous
now.
A director of a rape counseling and prevention center weighed in on the
opposite side.
"It stopped me cold in my tracks," said Lynn Blanco, executive director of
the Rape Crisis Center in San Antonio, Texas. "I'm incensed by the article."
Blanco said she fears that if the article and its arguments are taken
seriously, "men will have a reason to rape, that rape in a sense will be
validated."
So what she is saying is that we should judge the validity of theories
of social evolution and human development based on the criteria of
whether we like the consequences or not. The actual truth of the
arguments is irrelevant.
Sorry, scientists, but your theory of human evolution cannot be taken
seriously because Lynn Blanco doesn't like the message it would send
if it were.
So come up with a new theory. And this time, try to construct your
theory with a little be less truth and evidence in mind, and a little
more sensitivity towards womens' issues instead.
The center's director for crisis intervention, Dee Sisenberg said, "These
men are giving rapists an excuse to rape. Rapists will have an easy out
because Darwinian theory says 'I can't get away from my roots.'"
So Dee here says the same thing. Truth is irrelevant. The message is
what is important.
This is positively Orwellian.
I remember in his book 1984 the Ministry of Truth was "updating" the
history books to reflect the current political situation.
These people want to do exactly the same thing.
She said frank prevention efforts, aimed at both young men and women,
might set new standards in understanding "our strong biological and sexual
impulses" without either excusing rapists or burdening victims.
She said she plans to copy the article and distribute it to members of her
program's Sexual Assault Response Team for discussion.At the Feminist
Majority Foundation, spokeswoman Julie Bernstein called the paper
"interesting but scary." She suggested it could be seen as regressive
because it "almost validates the crime and blames the victim."
It's regressive because it validates the crime and blames the
victim?!
Again, people, it is a scientific theory. It's either true or it
isn't based on the evidence. Is that concept too difficult? You
cannot decide whether a theory is true or not based on how it makes
you feel or how much you like it. Evolution is evolution.
It's just absurd. Not a single one of these feminists questioned the
truth of the theory based on it having faulty assumptions, evidence,
or lines of reasoning. They all simply invalidated it because they
didn't like it. It didn't agree with their view of how they want
society to be, therefore it cannot be taken seriously.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You need to read Howard Bloom's book "The Lucifer Principle" before
you say stupid things about something being either "good" or "bad" for
evolution. Adaptation isn't about good or bad, it either produces a
survival advantage or it does not.
I doubt that Homo Habilis even had any such concept as "rape". And
without an understanding of the concept of "rape" - the crime of rape
doesn't actually occur. It's like cannibalism. We know that
cannibalism was part of human evolution too.
Bloom asserts that many behaviors that are now considered disgusting
and even criminal were once adaptive behaviors that are now no longer
so. In fact, those behaviors are now maladaptive - because evolution
isn't stagnant, it's dynamic.
So there really isn't anything to get worked up about - except if some
idiot tries to use this theory to justify what has evolved into modern
criminal "rape". Then we will need to introduce him into another
marvelous adaptive tool called the 9MM.
Whoa! The return of "catfish". Without the "catfish" ID.
*****, in the first place, no one would want you, even as a gift. In
the second place, you couldn't hit the ground with your hat, let alone
fire off a 9MM. And in the third place, women as a group don't carry
around 9MM's in the ordinary course of day-to-day affairs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Siteldawgnumber1" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is good for evolution |
08 Aug 2007 10:30:00 PM |
|
|
Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1186581814.912181.208270@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
On Aug 8, 5:57 am, wrote:
On Aug 7, 8:41 am, wrote:
On Aug 6, 8:30 am, wrote:
Reaction to two scientists' argument that rape is a product of
human evolution was swift and, in some cases, furious.
Much of the fury came from the scientific community as well as
from feminist and rape victim assistance groups, but at least one
representative of the latter found the theory by University of
New Mexico biologist Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist
Craig T. Palmer thought-provoking.
Jennifer Beeman, director of the Campus Violence Protection
Program at the University of California-Davis, said she
instinctively read the article as "dangerous." But after the
third reading, she said, "Some of it rang true, and intuitively
it sounds right."
Beeman, who has counseled more than 1,000 rape victims, said she
hopes the article and book will force scientists, social
scientists, women's organizations and rape experts to do some
soul-searching.
"For so long our mantra has been 'It's about power, not sex,"'
she said, "that I think we're afraid to admit it might be about
both."
As well you should be. Somebody is going to actually challenge
your pet assumptions with scientific theories?
Maybe if you'd actually done your homework yourself to get a solid
scientific basis in the first place you wouldn't have to be nervous
now.
A director of a rape counseling and prevention center weighed in
on the opposite side.
"It stopped me cold in my tracks," said Lynn Blanco, executive
director of the Rape Crisis Center in San Antonio, Texas. "I'm
incensed by the article."
Blanco said she fears that if the article and its arguments are
taken seriously, "men will have a reason to rape, that rape in a
sense will be validated."
So what she is saying is that we should judge the validity of
theories of social evolution and human development based on the
criteria of whether we like the consequences or not. The actual
truth of the arguments is irrelevant.
Sorry, scientists, but your theory of human evolution cannot be
taken seriously because Lynn Blanco doesn't like the message it
would send if it were.
So come up with a new theory. And this time, try to construct your
theory with a little be less truth and evidence in mind, and a
little more sensitivity towards womens' issues instead.
The center's director for crisis intervention, Dee Sisenberg
said, "These men are giving rapists an excuse to rape. Rapists
will have an easy out because Darwinian theory says 'I can't get
away from my roots.'"
So Dee here says the same thing. Truth is irrelevant. The message
is what is important.
This is positively Orwellian.
I remember in his book 1984 the Ministry of Truth was "updating"
the history books to reflect the current political situation.
These people want to do exactly the same thing.
She said frank prevention efforts, aimed at both young men and
women, might set new standards in understanding "our strong
biological and sexual impulses" without either excusing rapists
or burdening victims.
She said she plans to copy the article and distribute it to
members of her program's Sexual Assault Response Team for
discussion.At the Feminist Majority Foundation, spokeswoman Julie
Bernstein called the paper "interesting but scary." She suggested
it could be seen as regressive because it "almost validates the
crime and blames the victim."
It's regressive because it validates the crime and blames the
victim?!
Again, people, it is a scientific theory. It's either true or it
isn't based on the evidence. Is that concept too difficult? You
cannot decide whether a theory is true or not based on how it makes
you feel or how much you like it. Evolution is evolution.
It's just absurd. Not a single one of these feminists questioned
the truth of the theory based on it having faulty assumptions,
evidence, or lines of reasoning. They all simply invalidated it
because they didn't like it. It didn't agree with their view of
how they want society to be, therefore it cannot be taken
seriously.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You need to read Howard Bloom's book "The Lucifer Principle" before
you say stupid things about something being either "good" or "bad"
for evolution. Adaptation isn't about good or bad, it either produces
a survival advantage or it does not.
I doubt that Homo Habilis even had any such concept as "rape". And
without an understanding of the concept of "rape" - the crime of rape
doesn't actually occur. It's like cannibalism. We know that
cannibalism was part of human evolution too.
Bloom asserts that many behaviors that are now considered disgusting
and even criminal were once adaptive behaviors that are now no longer
so. In fact, those behaviors are now maladaptive - because evolution
isn't stagnant, it's dynamic.
So there really isn't anything to get worked up about - except if
some idiot tries to use this theory to justify what has evolved into
modern criminal "rape". Then we will need to introduce him into
another marvelous adaptive tool called the 9MM.
Whoa! The return of "catfish". Without the "catfish" ID.
*****, in the first place, no one would want you, even as a gift. In
the second place, you couldn't hit the ground with your hat, let alone
fire off a 9MM. And in the third place, women as a group don't carry
around 9MM's in the ordinary course of day-to-day affairs.
In your case GA, I'd say that's a good thing. ;>D
Now scurry on back to your soc.men where you can be among your own kind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grizzlie Antagonist" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is good for evolution |
08 Aug 2007 11:02:16 PM |
|
|
On Aug 8, 8:30 pm, Siteldawgnumber1 <Siteldawgnumb...@aol.com> wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1186581814.912181.208270@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
On Aug 8, 5:57 am, wrote:
On Aug 7, 8:41 am, wrote:
On Aug 6, 8:30 am, wrote:
Reaction to two scientists' argument that rape is a product of
human evolution was swift and, in some cases, furious.
Much of the fury came from the scientific community as well as
from feminist and rape victim assistance groups, but at least one
representative of the latter found the theory by University of
New Mexico biologist Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist
Craig T. Palmer thought-provoking.
Jennifer Beeman, director of the Campus Violence Protection
Program at the University of California-Davis, said she
instinctively read the article as "dangerous." But after the
third reading, she said, "Some of it rang true, and intuitively
it sounds right."
Beeman, who has counseled more than 1,000 rape victims, said she
hopes the article and book will force scientists, social
scientists, women's organizations and rape experts to do some
soul-searching.
"For so long our mantra has been 'It's about power, not sex,"'
she said, "that I think we're afraid to admit it might be about
both."
As well you should be. Somebody is going to actually challenge
your pet assumptions with scientific theories?
Maybe if you'd actually done your homework yourself to get a solid
scientific basis in the first place you wouldn't have to be nervous
now.
A director of a rape counseling and prevention center weighed in
on the opposite side.
"It stopped me cold in my tracks," said Lynn Blanco, executive
director of the Rape Crisis Center in San Antonio, Texas. "I'm
incensed by the article."
Blanco said she fears that if the article and its arguments are
taken seriously, "men will have a reason to rape, that rape in a
sense will be validated."
So what she is saying is that we should judge the validity of
theories of social evolution and human development based on the
criteria of whether we like the consequences or not. The actual
truth of the arguments is irrelevant.
Sorry, scientists, but your theory of human evolution cannot be
taken seriously because Lynn Blanco doesn't like the message it
would send if it were.
So come up with a new theory. And this time, try to construct your
theory with a little be less truth and evidence in mind, and a
little more sensitivity towards womens' issues instead.
The center's director for crisis intervention, Dee Sisenberg
said, "These men are giving rapists an excuse to rape. Rapists
will have an easy out because Darwinian theory says 'I can't get
away from my roots.'"
So Dee here says the same thing. Truth is irrelevant. The message
is what is important.
This is positively Orwellian.
I remember in his book 1984 the Ministry of Truth was "updating"
the history books to reflect the current political situation.
These people want to do exactly the same thing.
She said frank prevention efforts, aimed at both young men and
women, might set new standards in understanding "our strong
biological and sexual impulses" without either excusing rapists
or burdening victims.
She said she plans to copy the article and distribute it to
members of her program's Sexual Assault Response Team for
discussion.At the Feminist Majority Foundation, spokeswoman Julie
Bernstein called the paper "interesting but scary." She suggested
it could be seen as regressive because it "almost validates the
crime and blames the victim."
It's regressive because it validates the crime and blames the
victim?!
Again, people, it is a scientific theory. It's either true or it
isn't based on the evidence. Is that concept too difficult? You
cannot decide whether a theory is true or not based on how it makes
you feel or how much you like it. Evolution is evolution.
It's just absurd. Not a single one of these feminists questioned
the truth of the theory based on it having faulty assumptions,
evidence, or lines of reasoning. They all simply invalidated it
because they didn't like it. It didn't agree with their view of
how they want society to be, therefore it cannot be taken
seriously.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You need to read Howard Bloom's book "The Lucifer Principle" before
you say stupid things about something being either "good" or "bad"
for evolution. Adaptation isn't about good or bad, it either produces
a survival advantage or it does not.
I doubt that Homo Habilis even had any such concept as "rape". And
without an understanding of the concept of "rape" - the crime of rape
doesn't actually occur. It's like cannibalism. We know that
cannibalism was part of human evolution too.
Bloom asserts that many behaviors that are now considered disgusting
and even criminal were once adaptive behaviors that are now no longer
so. In fact, those behaviors are now maladaptive - because evolution
isn't stagnant, it's dynamic.
So there really isn't anything to get worked up about - except if
some idiot tries to use this theory to justify what has evolved into
modern criminal "rape". Then we will need to introduce him into
another marvelous adaptive tool called the 9MM.
Whoa! The return of "catfish". Without the "catfish" ID.
*****, in the first place, no one would want you, even as a gift. In
the second place, you couldn't hit the ground with your hat, let alone
fire off a 9MM. And in the third place, women as a group don't carry
around 9MM's in the ordinary course of day-to-day affairs.
In your case GA, I'd say that's a good thing.
*****! I think that you spend your entire life swallowing poison and
waiting for me to die.
Now scurry on back to your soc.men where you can be among your own kind
I AM on soc.men, wasted bum wipe! The OP cross-posted to a number of
newsgroups. D-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-h!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Siteldawgnumber1" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is good for evolution |
08 Aug 2007 11:08:08 PM |
|
|
Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanford@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1186632136.489333.85270@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
On Aug 8, 8:30 pm, Siteldawgnumber1 <Siteldawgnumb...@aol.com> wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1186581814.912181.208270@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
On Aug 8, 5:57 am, wrote:
On Aug 7, 8:41 am, wrote:
On Aug 6, 8:30 am, wrote:
Reaction to two scientists' argument that rape is a product of
human evolution was swift and, in some cases, furious.
Much of the fury came from the scientific community as well as
from feminist and rape victim assistance groups, but at least
one representative of the latter found the theory by
University of New Mexico biologist Randy Thornhill and
Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer thought-provoking.
Jennifer Beeman, director of the Campus Violence Protection
Program at the University of California-Davis, said she
instinctively read the article as "dangerous." But after the
third reading, she said, "Some of it rang true, and
intuitively it sounds right."
Beeman, who has counseled more than 1,000 rape victims, said
she hopes the article and book will force scientists, social
scientists, women's organizations and rape experts to do some
soul-searching.
"For so long our mantra has been 'It's about power, not sex,"'
she said, "that I think we're afraid to admit it might be
about both."
As well you should be. Somebody is going to actually challenge
your pet assumptions with scientific theories?
Maybe if you'd actually done your homework yourself to get a
solid scientific basis in the first place you wouldn't have to
be nervous now.
A director of a rape counseling and prevention center weighed
in on the opposite side.
"It stopped me cold in my tracks," said Lynn Blanco, executive
director of the Rape Crisis Center in San Antonio, Texas. "I'm
incensed by the article."
Blanco said she fears that if the article and its arguments
are taken seriously, "men will have a reason to rape, that
rape in a sense will be validated."
So what she is saying is that we should judge the validity of
theories of social evolution and human development based on the
criteria of whether we like the consequences or not. The actual
truth of the arguments is irrelevant.
Sorry, scientists, but your theory of human evolution cannot be
taken seriously because Lynn Blanco doesn't like the message it
would send if it were.
So come up with a new theory. And this time, try to construct
your theory with a little be less truth and evidence in mind,
and a little more sensitivity towards womens' issues instead.
The center's director for crisis intervention, Dee Sisenberg
said, "These men are giving rapists an excuse to rape. Rapists
will have an easy out because Darwinian theory says 'I can't
get away from my roots.'"
So Dee here says the same thing. Truth is irrelevant. The
message is what is important.
This is positively Orwellian.
I remember in his book 1984 the Ministry of Truth was "updating"
the history books to reflect the current political situation.
These people want to do exactly the same thing.
She said frank prevention efforts, aimed at both young men and
women, might set new standards in understanding "our strong
biological and sexual impulses" without either excusing
rapists or burdening victims.
She said she plans to copy the article and distribute it to
members of her program's Sexual Assault Response Team for
discussion.At the Feminist Majority Foundation, spokeswoman
Julie Bernstein called the paper "interesting but scary." She
suggested it could be seen as regressive because it "almost
validates the crime and blames the victim."
It's regressive because it validates the crime and blames the
victim?!
Again, people, it is a scientific theory. It's either true or
it isn't based on the evidence. Is that concept too difficult?
You cannot decide whether a theory is true or not based on how
it makes you feel or how much you like it. Evolution is
evolution.
It's just absurd. Not a single one of these feminists
questioned the truth of the theory based on it having faulty
assumptions, evidence, or lines of reasoning. They all simply
invalidated it because they didn't like it. It didn't agree
with their view of how they want society to be, therefore it
cannot be taken seriously.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You need to read Howard Bloom's book "The Lucifer Principle"
before you say stupid things about something being either "good"
or "bad" for evolution. Adaptation isn't about good or bad, it
either produces a survival advantage or it does not.
I doubt that Homo Habilis even had any such concept as "rape". And
without an understanding of the concept of "rape" - the crime of
rape doesn't actually occur. It's like cannibalism. We know that
cannibalism was part of human evolution too.
Bloom asserts that many behaviors that are now considered
disgusting and even criminal were once adaptive behaviors that are
now no longer so. In fact, those behaviors are now maladaptive -
because evolution isn't stagnant, it's dynamic.
So there really isn't anything to get worked up about - except if
some idiot tries to use this theory to justify what has evolved
into modern criminal "rape". Then we will need to introduce him
into another marvelous adaptive tool called the 9MM.
Whoa! The return of "catfish". Without the "catfish" ID.
*****, in the first place, no one would want you, even as a gift.
In the second place, you couldn't hit the ground with your hat, let
alone fire off a 9MM. And in the third place, women as a group
don't carry around 9MM's in the ordinary course of day-to-day
affairs.
In your case GA, I'd say that's a good thing.
*****! I think that you spend your entire life swallowing poison and
waiting for me to die.
Awfully full of yourself, aren't you?
Now scurry on back to your soc.men where you can be among your own
kind
I AM on soc.men, wasted bum wipe!
No, you're posting in alt.religion.jehovahs-witn, and are totally off
topic. Would you like to discuss JW's?
The OP cross-posted to a number of
newsgroups.
That's not my problem.
D-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-h!
Hey, you're pretty good at that, aren't you? ;>D
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Larkin" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is good for evolution |
08 Aug 2007 11:23:35 PM |
|
|
On Aug 8, 9:08 pm, Siteldawgnumber1 <Siteldawgnumb...@aol.com> wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1186632136.489333.85270@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
On Aug 8, 8:30 pm, Siteldawgnumber1 <Siteldawgnumb...@aol.com> wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1186581814.912181.208270@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
On Aug 8, 5:57 am, wrote:
On Aug 7, 8:41 am, wrote:
On Aug 6, 8:30 am, wrote:
Reaction to two scientists' argument that rape is a product of
human evolution was swift and, in some cases, furious.
Much of the fury came from the scientific community as well as
from feminist and rape victim assistance groups, but at least
one representative of the latter found the theory by
University of New Mexico biologist Randy Thornhill and
Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer thought-provoking.
Jennifer Beeman, director of the Campus Violence Protection
Program at the University of California-Davis, said she
instinctively read the article as "dangerous." But after the
third reading, she said, "Some of it rang true, and
intuitively it sounds right."
Beeman, who has counseled more than 1,000 rape victims, said
she hopes the article and book will force scientists, social
scientists, women's organizations and rape experts to do some
soul-searching.
"For so long our mantra has been 'It's about power, not sex,"'
she said, "that I think we're afraid to admit it might be
about both."
As well you should be. Somebody is going to actually challenge
your pet assumptions with scientific theories?
Maybe if you'd actually done your homework yourself to get a
solid scientific basis in the first place you wouldn't have to
be nervous now.
A director of a rape counseling and prevention center weighed
in on the opposite side.
"It stopped me cold in my tracks," said Lynn Blanco, executive
director of the Rape Crisis Center in San Antonio, Texas. "I'm
incensed by the article."
Blanco said she fears that if the article and its arguments
are taken seriously, "men will have a reason to rape, that
rape in a sense will be validated."
So what she is saying is that we should judge the validity of
theories of social evolution and human development based on the
criteria of whether we like the consequences or not. The actual
truth of the arguments is irrelevant.
Sorry, scientists, but your theory of human evolution cannot be
taken seriously because Lynn Blanco doesn't like the message it
would send if it were.
So come up with a new theory. And this time, try to construct
your theory with a little be less truth and evidence in mind,
and a little more sensitivity towards womens' issues instead.
The center's director for crisis intervention, Dee Sisenberg
said, "These men are giving rapists an excuse to rape. Rapists
will have an easy out because Darwinian theory says 'I can't
get away from my roots.'"
So Dee here says the same thing. Truth is irrelevant. The
message is what is important.
This is positively Orwellian.
I remember in his book 1984 the Ministry of Truth was "updating"
the history books to reflect the current political situation.
These people want to do exactly the same thing.
She said frank prevention efforts, aimed at both young men and
women, might set new standards in understanding "our strong
biological and sexual impulses" without either excusing
rapists or burdening victims.
She said she plans to copy the article and distribute it to
members of her program's Sexual Assault Response Team for
discussion.At the Feminist Majority Foundation, spokeswoman
Julie Bernstein called the paper "interesting but scary." She
suggested it could be seen as regressive because it "almost
validates the crime and blames the victim."
It's regressive because it validates the crime and blames the
victim?!
Again, people, it is a scientific theory. It's either true or
it isn't based on the evidence. Is that concept too difficult?
You cannot decide whether a theory is true or not based on how
it makes you feel or how much you like it. Evolution is
evolution.
It's just absurd. Not a single one of these feminists
questioned the truth of the theory based on it having faulty
assumptions, evidence, or lines of reasoning. They all simply
invalidated it because they didn't like it. It didn't agree
with their view of how they want society to be, therefore it
cannot be taken seriously.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You need to read Howard Bloom's book "The Lucifer Principle"
before you say stupid things about something being either "good"
or "bad" for evolution. Adaptation isn't about good or bad, it
either produces a survival advantage or it does not.
I doubt that Homo Habilis even had any such concept as "rape". And
without an understanding of the concept of "rape" - the crime of
rape doesn't actually occur. It's like cannibalism. We know that
cannibalism was part of human evolution too.
Bloom asserts that many behaviors that are now considered
disgusting and even criminal were once adaptive behaviors that are
now no longer so. In fact, those behaviors are now maladaptive -
because evolution isn't stagnant, it's dynamic.
So there really isn't anything to get worked up about - except if
some idiot tries to use this theory to justify what has evolved
into modern criminal "rape". Then we will need to introduce him
into another marvelous adaptive tool called the 9MM.
Whoa! The return of "catfish". Without the "catfish" ID.
*****, in the first place, no one would want you, even as a gift.
In the second place, you couldn't hit the ground with your hat, let
alone fire off a 9MM. And in the third place, women as a group
don't carry around 9MM's in the ordinary course of day-to-day
affairs.
In your case GA, I'd say that's a good thing.
*****! I think that you spend your entire life swallowing poison and
waiting for me to die.
Awfully full of yourself, aren't you?
I don't trust you to look after my interests.
Now scurry on back to your soc.men where you can be among your own
kind
I AM on soc.men, wasted bum wipe!
No, you're posting in alt.religion.jehovahs-witn, and are totally off
topic. Would you like to discuss JW's?
The OP cross-posted to a number of
newsgroups.
That's not my problem.
It's not mine either. You should have taken it up with whoever
initially decided to introduce the topic of rape.
D-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-h!
Hey, you're pretty good at that, aren't you? ;>D-
And your graphic suggests that you're pretty good at picking your nose.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Siteldawgnumber1" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is good for evolution |
08 Aug 2007 11:47:28 PM |
|
|
John Larkin <sartorialsplendor@myway.com> wrote in
news:1186633415.993645.113410@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
On Aug 8, 9:08 pm, Siteldawgnumber1 <Siteldawgnumb...@aol.com> wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1186632136.489333.85270@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
On Aug 8, 8:30 pm, Siteldawgnumber1 <Siteldawgnumb...@aol.com>
wrote:
Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1186581814.912181.208270@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
On Aug 8, 5:57 am, wrote:
On Aug 7, 8:41 am, wrote:
On Aug 6, 8:30 am, wrote:
Reaction to two scientists' argument that rape is a product
of human evolution was swift and, in some cases, furious.
Much of the fury came from the scientific community as well
as from feminist and rape victim assistance groups, but at
least one representative of the latter found the theory by
University of New Mexico biologist Randy Thornhill and
Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer thought-provoking.
Jennifer Beeman, director of the Campus Violence Protection
Program at the University of California-Davis, said she
instinctively read the article as "dangerous." But after
the third reading, she said, "Some of it rang true, and
intuitively it sounds right."
Beeman, who has counseled more than 1,000 rape victims,
said she hopes the article and book will force scientists,
social scientists, women's organizations and rape experts
to do some soul-searching.
"For so long our mantra has been 'It's about power, not
sex,"' she said, "that I think we're afraid to admit it
might be about both."
As well you should be. Somebody is going to actually
challenge your pet assumptions with scientific theories?
Maybe if you'd actually done your homework yourself to get a
solid scientific basis in the first place you wouldn't have
to be nervous now.
A director of a rape counseling and prevention center
weighed in on the opposite side.
"It stopped me cold in my tracks," said Lynn Blanco,
executive director of the Rape Crisis Center in San
Antonio, Texas. "I'm incensed by the article."
Blanco said she fears that if the article and its arguments
are taken seriously, "men will have a reason to rape, that
rape in a sense will be validated."
So what she is saying is that we should judge the validity of
theories of social evolution and human development based on
the criteria of whether we like the consequences or not. The
actual truth of the arguments is irrelevant.
Sorry, scientists, but your theory of human evolution cannot
be taken seriously because Lynn Blanco doesn't like the
message it would send if it were.
So come up with a new theory. And this time, try to
construct your theory with a little be less truth and
evidence in mind, and a little more sensitivity towards
womens' issues instead.
The center's director for crisis intervention, Dee
Sisenberg said, "These men are giving rapists an excuse to
rape. Rapists will have an easy out because Darwinian
theory says 'I can't get away from my roots.'"
So Dee here says the same thing. Truth is irrelevant. The
message is what is important.
This is positively Orwellian.
I remember in his book 1984 the Ministry of Truth was
"updating" the history books to reflect the current political
situation.
These people want to do exactly the same thing.
She said frank prevention efforts, aimed at both young men
and women, might set new standards in understanding "our
strong biological and sexual impulses" without either
excusing rapists or burdening victims.
She said she plans to copy the article and distribute it to
members of her program's Sexual Assault Response Team for
discussion.At the Feminist Majority Foundation, spokeswoman
Julie Bernstein called the paper "interesting but scary."
She suggested it could be seen as regressive because it
"almost validates the crime and blames the victim."
It's regressive because it validates the crime and blames the
victim?!
Again, people, it is a scientific theory. It's either true
or it isn't based on the evidence. Is that concept too
difficult? You cannot decide whether a theory is true or not
based on how it makes you feel or how much you like it.
Evolution is evolution.
It's just absurd. Not a single one of these feminists
questioned the truth of the theory based on it having faulty
assumptions, evidence, or lines of reasoning. They all
simply invalidated it because they didn't like it. It didn't
agree with their view of how they want society to be,
therefore it cannot be taken seriously.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You need to read Howard Bloom's book "The Lucifer Principle"
before you say stupid things about something being either
"good" or "bad" for evolution. Adaptation isn't about good or
bad, it either produces a survival advantage or it does not.
I doubt that Homo Habilis even had any such concept as "rape".
And without an understanding of the concept of "rape" - the
crime of rape doesn't actually occur. It's like cannibalism. We
know that cannibalism was part of human evolution too.
Bloom asserts that many behaviors that are now considered
disgusting and even criminal were once adaptive behaviors that
are now no longer so. In fact, those behaviors are now
maladaptive - because evolution isn't stagnant, it's dynamic.
So there really isn't anything to get worked up about - except
if some idiot tries to use this theory to justify what has
evolved into modern criminal "rape". Then we will need to
introduce him into another marvelous adaptive tool called the
9MM.
Whoa! The return of "catfish". Without the "catfish" ID.
*****, in the first place, no one would want you, even as a
gift. In the second place, you couldn't hit the ground with your
hat, let alone fire off a 9MM. And in the third place, women as
a group don't carry around 9MM's in the ordinary course of
day-to-day affairs.
In your case GA, I'd say that's a good thing.
*****! I think that you spend your entire life swallowing poison
and waiting for me to die.
Awfully full of yourself, aren't you?
I don't trust you to look after my interests.
I certainly don't blame you there, but believe me, I have no desire to
look after your interests. I'm looking after mine.
Now scurry on back to your soc.men where you can be among your own
kind
I AM on soc.men, wasted bum wipe!
No, you're posting in alt.religion.jehovahs-witn, and are totally off
topic. Would you like to discuss JW's?
The OP cross-posted to a number of
newsgroups.
That's not my problem.
It's not mine either. You should have taken it up with whoever
initially decided to introduce the topic of rape.
Oh, it was probably Jabriol or a Jabriol impersonator, so what good would
it do?
D-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-h!
Hey, you're pretty good at that, aren't you? ;>D-
And your graphic suggests that you're pretty good at picking your
nose.
Now that was a real scorcher. Perhaps you should consider taking up
residence in alt.flame.
Would you like to discuss JW's?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is good for evolution |
08 Aug 2007 09:05:54 AM |
|
|
On Aug 8, 8:57 am, wrote:
On Aug 7, 8:41 am, wrote:
On Aug 6, 8:30 am, wrote:
Reaction to two scientists' argument that rape is a product of human
evolution was swift and, in some cases, furious.
Much of the fury came from the scientific community as well as from
feminist and rape victim assistance groups, but at least one
representative of the latter found the theory by University of New Mexico
biologist Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer
thought-provoking.
Jennifer Beeman, director of the Campus Violence Protection Program at the
University of California-Davis, said she instinctively read the article as
"dangerous." But after the third reading, she said, "Some of it rang true,
and intuitively it sounds right."
Beeman, who has counseled more than 1,000 rape victims, said she hopes the
article and book will force scientists, social scientists, women's
organizations and rape experts to do some soul-searching.
"For so long our mantra has been 'It's about power, not sex,"' she said,
"that I think we're afraid to admit it might be about both."
As well you should be. Somebody is going to actually challenge your
pet assumptions with scientific theories?
Maybe if you'd actually done your homework yourself to get a solid
scientific basis in the first place you wouldn't have to be nervous
now.
A director of a rape counseling and prevention center weighed in on the
opposite side.
"It stopped me cold in my tracks," said Lynn Blanco, executive director of
the Rape Crisis Center in San Antonio, Texas. "I'm incensed by the article."
Blanco said she fears that if the article and its arguments are taken
seriously, "men will have a reason to rape, that rape in a sense will be
validated."
So what she is saying is that we should judge the validity of theories
of social evolution and human development based on the criteria of
whether we like the consequences or not. The actual truth of the
arguments is irrelevant.
Sorry, scientists, but your theory of human evolution cannot be taken
seriously because Lynn Blanco doesn't like the message it would send
if it were.
So come up with a new theory. And this time, try to construct your
theory with a little be less truth and evidence in mind, and a little
more sensitivity towards womens' issues instead.
The center's director for crisis intervention, Dee Sisenberg said, "These
men are giving rapists an excuse to rape. Rapists will have an easy out
because Darwinian theory says 'I can't get away from my roots.'"
So Dee here says the same thing. Truth is irrelevant. The message is
what is important.
This is positively Orwellian.
I remember in his book 1984 the Ministry of Truth was "updating" the
history books to reflect the current political situation.
These people want to do exactly the same thing.
She said frank prevention efforts, aimed at both young men and women,
might set new standards in understanding "our strong biological and sexual
impulses" without either excusing rapists or burdening victims.
She said she plans to copy the article and distribute it to members of her
program's Sexual Assault Response Team for discussion.At the Feminist
Majority Foundation, spokeswoman Julie Bernstein called the paper
"interesting but scary." She suggested it could be seen as regressive
because it "almost validates the crime and blames the victim."
It's regressive because it validates the crime and blames the
victim?!
Again, people, it is a scientific theory. It's either true or it
isn't based on the evidence. Is that concept too difficult? You
cannot decide whether a theory is true or not based on how it makes
you feel or how much you like it. Evolution is evolution.
It's just absurd. Not a single one of these feminists questioned the
truth of the theory based on it having faulty assumptions, evidence,
or lines of reasoning. They all simply invalidated it because they
didn't like it. It didn't agree with their view of how they want
society to be, therefore it cannot be taken seriously.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You need to read Howard Bloom's book "The Lucifer Principle" before
you say stupid things about something being either "good" or "bad" for
evolution. Adaptation isn't about good or bad, it either produces a
survival advantage or it does not.
I didn't read it that way. It seemed to me that Patrick was pointing
out that scientific theory or the scientific method shouldn't be held
hostage to special interest group notions of what's acceptable or not.
I doubt that Homo Habilis even had any such concept as "rape". And
without an understanding of the concept of "rape" - the crime of rape
doesn't actually occur. It's like cannibalism. We know that
cannibalism was part of human evolution too.
And it's perfectly acceptable to discuss that and other practices
without someone or some group trying to claim that talking about these
things is the equivalent of approving of them.
Bloom asserts that many behaviors that are now considered disgusting
and even criminal were once adaptive behaviors that are now no longer
so. In fact, those behaviors are now maladaptive - because evolution
isn't stagnant, it's dynamic.
So there really isn't anything to get worked up about - except if some
idiot tries to use this theory to justify what has evolved into modern
criminal "rape".
I think that's what Patrick was protesting, the assertion that
scientific inquiry needs to be suppressed in order to not give anyone
any "ideas". All that really amounts to is a group trying to limit
science in order to protect their own dogma.
Then we will need to introduce him into another
marvelous adaptive tool called the 9MM.
Pfffft, candyass--use a .45
The human species evolved civilization by developing increasingly more
sophisticated systems of cooperation and communication. Part of that
evolutionary leap from caves to cities involved the constantly
changing ideas about the self and individuality.
Cat- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is good for evolution |
08 Aug 2007 08:52:11 PM |
|
|
On Aug 8, 7:05 am, Ben <ArGe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 8, 8:57 am, wrote:
You need to read Howard Bloom's book "The Lucifer Principle" before
you say stupid things about something being either "good" or "bad" for
evolution. Adaptation isn't about good or bad, it either produces a
survival advantage or it does not.
I didn't read it that way.
You didn't read the title of the post? Isn't that where the author of
the post states a preview of his thesis?
He said "rape was good for evolution".
I seriously doubt that the researchers asserted such a thing.
It seemed to me that Patrick was pointing
out that scientific theory or the scientific method shouldn't be held
hostage to special interest group notions of what's acceptable or not.
Then he should have said so plainly in his title.
I doubt that Homo Habilis even had any such concept as "rape". And
without an understanding of the concept of "rape" - the crime of rape
doesn't actually occur. It's like cannibalism. We know that
cannibalism was part of human evolution too.
And it's perfectly acceptable to discuss that and other practices
without someone or some group trying to claim that talking about these
things is the equivalent of approving of them.
Perhaps the problem is with making his interpretation concise from the
start? Why the offensive post title? It's almost as if he was trolling
for a strong negative response.
Bloom asserts that many behaviors that are now considered disgusting
and even criminal were once adaptive behaviors that are now no longer
so. In fact, those behaviors are now maladaptive - because evolution
isn't stagnant, it's dynamic.
So there really isn't anything to get worked up about - except if some
idiot tries to use this theory to justify what has evolved into modern
criminal "rape".
I think that's what Patrick was protesting, the assertion that
scientific inquiry needs to be suppressed in order to not give anyone
any "ideas". All that really amounts to is a group trying to limit
science in order to protect their own dogma.
See above. If his his post was an undergrad essay it would be returned
for editing because of the confusion in his title.
Then we will need to introduce him into another
marvelous adaptive tool called the 9MM.
Pfffft, candyass--use a .45
The Makarov fits into my purse better.
Cat
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is good for evolution |
09 Aug 2007 08:29:31 AM |
|
|
On Aug 8, 9:52 pm, wrote:
On Aug 8, 7:05 am, Ben <ArGe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 8, 8:57 am, wrote:
You need to read Howard Bloom's book "The Lucifer Principle" before
you say stupid things about something being either "good" or "bad" for
evolution. Adaptation isn't about good or bad, it either produces a
survival advantage or it does not.
I didn't read it that way.
You didn't read the title of the post? Isn't that where the author of
the post states a preview of his thesis?
He said "rape was good for evolution".
I seriously doubt that the researchers asserted such a thing.
It seemed to me that Patrick was pointing
out that scientific theory or the scientific method shouldn't be held
hostage to special interest group notions of what's acceptable or not.
Then he should have said so plainly in his title.
"rape is good for evolution" is the title of the original poster. I
responded to that, which makes my title "Re: rape is good for
evolution." Guess what? That's YOUR title too.
I doubt that Homo Habilis even had any such concept as "rape". And
without an understanding of the concept of "rape" - the crime of rape
doesn't actually occur. It's like cannibalism. We know that
cannibalism was part of human evolution too.
And it's perfectly acceptable to discuss that and other practices
without someone or some group trying to claim that talking about these
things is the equivalent of approving of them.
Perhaps the problem is with making his interpretation concise from the
start? Why the offensive post title? It's almost as if he was trolling
for a strong negative response.
Bloom asserts that many behaviors that are now considered disgusting
and even criminal were once adaptive behaviors that are now no longer
so. In fact, those behaviors are now maladaptive - because evolution
isn't stagnant, it's dynamic.
So there really isn't anything to get worked up about - except if some
idiot tries to use this theory to justify what has evolved into modern
criminal "rape".
I think that's what Patrick was protesting, the assertion that
scientific inquiry needs to be suppressed in order to not give anyone
any "ideas". All that really amounts to is a group trying to limit
science in order to protect their own dogma.
See above. If his his post was an undergrad essay it would be returned
for editing because of the confusion in his title.
Then I suppose yours would too, since the title of your message is the
same as the title of mine.
Then we will need to introduce him into another
marvelous adaptive tool called the 9MM.
Pfffft, candyass--use a .45
The Makarov fits into my purse better.
Cat
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is good for evolution |
08 Aug 2007 09:58:07 PM |
|
|
On Aug 8, 9:52 pm, wrote:
On Aug 8, 7:05 am, Ben <ArGe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 8, 8:57 am, wrote:
You need to read Howard Bloom's book "The Lucifer Principle" before
you say stupid things about something being either "good" or "bad" for
evolution. Adaptation isn't about good or bad, it either produces a
survival advantage or it does not.
I didn't read it that way.
You didn't read the title of the post? Isn't that where the author of
the post states a preview of his thesis?
He said "rape was good for evolution".
I seriously doubt that the researchers asserted such a thing.
I saw the "Re:" and assumed he was responding to a post that was
originated by someone else.
It seemed to me that Patrick was pointing
out that scientific theory or the scientific method shouldn't be held
hostage to special interest group notions of what's acceptable or not.
Then he should have said so plainly in his title.
He said so in the text. Just how long do you want a title to be?
I doubt that Homo Habilis even had any such concept as "rape". And
without an understanding of the concept of "rape" - the crime of rape
doesn't actually occur. It's like cannibalism. We know that
cannibalism was part of human evolution too.
And it's perfectly acceptable to discuss that and other practices
without someone or some group trying to claim that talking about these
things is the equivalent of approving of them.
Perhaps the problem is with making his interpretation concise from the
start? Why the offensive post title? It's almost as if he was trolling
for a strong negative response.
Well, as I said, I didn't think he originated the title.
Bloom asserts that many behaviors that are now considered disgusting
and even criminal were once adaptive behaviors that are now no longer
so. In fact, those behaviors are now maladaptive - because evolution
isn't stagnant, it's dynamic.
So there really isn't anything to get worked up about - except if some
idiot tries to use this theory to justify what has evolved into modern
criminal "rape".
I think that's what Patrick was protesting, the assertion that
scientific inquiry needs to be suppressed in order to not give anyone
any "ideas". All that really amounts to is a group trying to limit
science in order to protect their own dogma.
See above. If his his post was an undergrad essay it would be returned
for editing because of the confusion in his title.
Good thing we're not wwritingg for grad school here, then, eh?
Because I suspect neither your efforts nor mine would make it
either. ;)
Then we will need to introduce him into another
marvelous adaptive tool called the 9MM.
Pfffft, candyass--use a .45
The Makarov fits into my purse better.
Get the mini-Glock .45. Fits smaller hands, surprisingly soft
recoil. hehehe
Cat
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "les_on_usenet" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is good for evolution |
06 Aug 2007 11:12:19 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 06:30:06 -0600 (MDT), wrote:
Reaction to two scientists' argument that rape is a product of human
evolution was swift and, in some cases, furious.
Much of the fury came from the scientific community as well as from
feminist and rape victim assistance groups, but at least one
representative of the latter found the theory by University of New Mexico
biologist Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer
thought-provoking.
Jennifer Beeman, director of the Campus Violence Protection Program at the
University of California-Davis, said she instinctively read the article as
"dangerous." But after the third reading, she said, "Some of it rang true,
and intuitively it sounds right."
I agree.
Presumably Jabriol does not.
Beeman, who has counseled more than 1,000 rape victims, said she hopes the
article and book will force scientists, social scientists, women's
organizations and rape experts to do some soul-searching.
"For so long our mantra has been 'It's about power, not sex,"' she said,
"that I think we're afraid to admit it might be about both."
A director of a rape counseling and prevention center weighed in on the
opposite side.
"It stopped me cold in my tracks," said Lynn Blanco, executive director of
the Rape Crisis Center in San Antonio, Texas. "I'm incensed by the article."
Blanco said she fears that if the article and its arguments are taken
seriously, "men will have a reason to rape, that rape in a sense will be
validated."
There is no excuse for rape. Rape is the ultimate in selfishness
especially when the victim is a child and the child is murdered
afterwards.
The center's director for crisis intervention, Dee Sisenberg said, "These
men are giving rapists an excuse to rape. Rapists will have an easy out
because Darwinian theory says 'I can't get away from my roots.'"
She said frank prevention efforts, aimed at both young men and women,
might set new standards in understanding "our strong biological and sexual
impulses" without either excusing rapists or burdening victims.
She said she plans to copy the article and distribute it to members of her
program's Sexual Assault Response Team for discussion.At the Feminist
Majority Foundation, spokeswoman Julie Bernstein called the paper
"interesting but scary." She suggested it could be seen as regressive
because it "almost validates the crime and blames the victim."
Since Jabriol denies evolution occurs and rejects Darwins theories of
how it occurred I presume he rejects all this as nonesense and
that evolution cannot be blamed for rape since evolution does
not occur.
His alternative explanation I guess comes from his notions
of a god and its supposed order to "go forth and multiply" which
is exactly what the rapist tried to do. Serial rapists and killers
use the 'god ordered me' excuse more than any other.
The evolutionary explanation makes more sense and looks
logical though I do not really know enough about the subject
to make a reasoned assessment. If we know the underlying
causes of rape then, of course, we are better armed to counter
the rapist tendancies. If the would be rapist was not full
of notions there was a god they would not be able to use
the 'god told me to do it' card and maybe, just maybe, might
not even rape in the first place.
Knowledge is power not ignorance
Les Hellawell
Greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "M.M. Martinson" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is good for evolution |
06 Aug 2007 01:34:38 PM |
|
|
"les_on_usenet" <delete-unread@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:gigeb31ruiiirf9chh0s2is1le2822dlpv@4ax.com...
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 06:30:06 -0600 (MDT), wrote:
The evolutionary explanation makes more sense and looks
logical though I do not really know enough about the subject
to make a reasoned assessment.
I read an article long ago that refutes rape as a beneficial reproductive
act on the part of the mentally unbalanced sociopath. Only mentally ill
sociopaths rape. Mankind doesn't need more mentally ill people. Normal men
would get nothing from raping a horrified woman. When children were born
from rape the mothers would abandon them to die or their husband's would
kill the unwanted child. In the long run there was little if any benefit to
mankind from rape despite what a mentally ill Jehovah's Witness known as
jabriol believes and preaches.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darwin123" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is good for evolution |
30 Aug 2007 10:14:59 AM |
|
|
On Aug 6, 2:34 pm, "M.M. Martinson" <mmm...@invalid.com> wrote:
"les_on_usenet" <delete-unr...@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:gigeb31ruiiirf9chh0s2is1le2822dlpv@4ax.com...
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 06:30:06 -0600 (MDT), wrote:
The evolutionary explanation makes more sense and looks
logical though I do not really know enough about the subject
to make a reasoned assessment.
I read an article long ago that refutes rape as a beneficial reproductive
act on the part of the mentally unbalanced sociopath.
More lying, huh Martinson. You don't give the reference, but I can
conjecture what you really read. The word benefit is used here is
merely a statistical word. It simply means that the person left
children. It was not talking about what anyone needs.
You may benefit from lying because it convinces some silly
people that you are smart. The more people who think you are smart,
the more benefit. Some people will adopt the same strategy, and also
misquote articles. Thus, the community of liars gets a big benefit
from your lying. However, I don't think the world needs more liars.
Its going to get them, though.
You lied about the bees living at the time of the dinosaurs. At
least that time you gave a link. It was my fault for not checking it
out. But this time, you purposely hid your citation. You know the
author was not advocating rape.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: rape is good for evolution |
06 Aug 2007 12:42:56 PM |
|
|
So is killing deformed children, but most societies frown on that, too.
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
