Originally posted by stellspalfieWhen you accept that looking at human behaviour through the prism of the evolutionary hypothesis and scientific dogma is pure folly! then we can talk.
actually the foxes were the police, the bunnies were the rioters. of course you are going to try and compare all things 'bunny' with all things 'rioter' to make it look absurd. rather than go down that tiresome old route, why not actually debate the point. if you are so confident comparisons should not be made then you can stick to the crux of the argum ...[text shortened]... udy is not comparing any other attribute.
so, is it wrong to compare in this case? if so why?
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI am glad you mention it for here we have an apparently rational study, which looking through the prism of the evolutionary hypothesis and scientific dogma concludes that rape is 'natural', wow, even if we juxtapose the Biblical laws incumbent upon the ancient Israelites while ignoring your sensationalistic journalism of 'near approval for rape', I don't think the Bible would ever make the claim that rape is 'natural'.
How do you square this with the near approval granted toward this heinous crime by your scripture?
21 Feb 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadPerhaps you might like to research the subject of why men rape and report back to us for the fact is, we are endowed with the faculty of conscience.
So when the conscious has been suppressed, why do people rape? Surely it is for the exact same reason as why animals rape?
21 Feb 14
Originally posted by Proper KnobYes its dangerous because as soon as you make the claim that something is 'natural' it can open the door for all kinds of attempts at justification, that is why its dangerous, now the article attempts to state that just because something is natural does not mean that its right but even a tenuous link can be manipulated and utilised as a justification, flip sake Mengele even attempted to justify his atrocities on children in the field of genetics stating that society would thank him!
Insidiously dangerous?
21 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI know perfectly well why men rape, its right there in the OP. You however are denying it, so I am asking you what your alternative explanation might be.
Perhaps you might like to research the subject of why men rape and report back to us
.....for the fact is, we are endowed with the faculty of conscience.
You did say that men rape when their faculty of conscience has been suppressed. You however did not explain why such suppression should lead to rape.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have already provided you with the reason why I think rape happens without going into detail and if you know then why don't you tell us. You were asked once, this is now the second time.
I know perfectly well why men rape, its right there in the OP. You however are denying it, so I am asking you what your alternative explanation might be.
[b].....for the fact is, we are endowed with the faculty of conscience.
You did say that men rape when their faculty of conscience has been suppressed. You however did not explain why such suppression should lead to rape.[/b]
21 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieArguments can be made, but the question is 'are they justified'?
Yes its dangerous because as soon as you make the claim that something is 'natural' it can open the door for all kinds of attempts at justification, that is why its dangerous, now the article attempts to state that just because something is natural does not mean that its right but even a tenuous link can be manipulated and utilised as a justification ...[text shortened]... ustify his atrocities on children in the field of genetics stating that society would thank him!
Lets get this bit settled as well, this theory has been put forward by two scientists only and most scientists disagree with them.
21 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat is your understanding of the word 'natural' in this context? From a scientific perspective, 'natural' implies 'something that happens in nature', or 'something that happens with less than rare frequency'. I think it is impossible to deny that rape happens amongst humans frequently.
I am glad you mention it for here we have an apparently rational study, which looking through the prism of the evolutionary hypothesis and scientific dogma concludes that rape is 'natural', wow, even if we juxtapose the Biblical laws incumbent upon the ancient Israelites while ignoring your sensationalistic journalism of 'near approval for rape', I don't think the Bible would ever make the claim that rape is 'natural'.
I think your objection is due to your own incorrect presumption that being 'natural' has some bearing on moral correctness.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
21 Feb 14
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf it's science it's not dogma. If it's dogma it's not science. I join you in denouncing dogma of all kinds, to join me urge you to join me in this.
I believe its the utmost folly to equate human behaviour with animal behaviour and that scientific dogma results in ludicrous assertions. Will you now join me in publicly denouncing scientific dogma!
21 Feb 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadno its doesn't, can you understand what you read? did you actually read the article? the article itself states that because something is natural does not necessitate that its right, will you read the citations prior to commenting its rather tedious if you have not.
What is your understanding of the word 'natural' in this context? From a scientific perspective, 'natural' implies 'something that happens in nature', or 'something that happens with less than rare frequency'. I think it is impossible to deny that rape happens amongst humans frequently.
I think your objection is due to your own incorrect presumption that being 'natural' has some bearing on moral correctness.
21 Feb 14
Originally posted by Proper Knobsome disagree, it remains to be seen if all disagree!
Arguments can be made, but the question is 'are they justified'?
Lets get this bit settled as well, this theory has been put forward by two scientists only and most scientists disagree with them.
21 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo answer the questions.
no its doesn't, can you understand what you read? did you actually read the article? the article itself states that because something is natural does not necessitate that its right, will you read the citations prior to commenting its rather tedious if you have not.