Originally posted by SwissGambitNo the argument is valid, scientific dogma has resulted in a ludicrous assertion, embarrassing I know but I have not attacked the evolutionary hypothesis nor discredited it, it was simply not necessary in this instance, the claim and the way it was derived was ample cannon fodder as it stood.
Heh, anyone could see that this was going to be a go-nowhere thread from post #1. "Some scientist said something offensive and I want to use this as grounds to void entire fields of science!" <---I would say this argument crashes like a lead balloon, but even a lead balloon starts off in the sky somehow.
Originally posted by stellspalfieyou mean like equating the behaviour of policemen and London rioters with rabbits and foxes, yes, that was highly amusing! I gotta put that up there on my avatar thingy beside your other wonderful sayings, maybe i will even take Hazel to Strathclyde police for recruitment!
very true, sometimes its fun to see whats going to come out of his mouth though.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
21 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have not attacked the evolutionary hypothesis nor discredited it, it was simply not necessary in this instance
No the argument is valid, scientific dogma has resulted in a ludicrous assertion, embarrassing I know but I have not attacked the evolutionary hypothesis nor discredited it, it was simply not necessary in this instance, the claim and the way it was derived was ample cannon fodder as it stood.
and that to equate human sexual behaviour with animal sexual behaviour is the utmost folly.
so is it just this instance or is it all instances of equating human behavior with animals?
21 Feb 14
Originally posted by stellspalfiehard to say, one must work on a case by case basis.
[b]I have not attacked the evolutionary hypothesis nor discredited it, it was simply not necessary in this instance
and that to equate human sexual behaviour with animal sexual behaviour is the utmost folly.
so is it just this instance or is it all instances of equating human behavior with animals?[/b]
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
21 Feb 14
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieUpon proofing this before sending, I realize that it might be taken as somewhat satirical. It is not meant that way.
Perhaps you have a point JS357 and when science attempts to enter into realms that's its unfit for these types of assertions as contained in the cited text are an almost inevitable consequence.
OK so I think there is evidence that "Forced copulation has been observed in ducks, lizards, monkeys, fruit flies, crickets, orangutans, chimpanzees, and countless other species."
This quote is from a link that disputes that the word "rape" applies, because, as it says, "The central problem is that the legal definitions of rape include a lack of consent on the part of the victim, and we simply cannot know the extent to which dolphins or other animals are able to give consent."
http://justingregg.com/the-dolphin-rape-myth/
And, I add, we have not applied the concept of statutory rape to the social life of these animals. But it is possible that some rudimentary "law enforcement" exists around the incidence of forced copulation among some of these animals. IOW it might be punished or violently prevented by, say, an alpha male in a troop of monkeys.
So a question: is forced copulation natural, either in humans or otherwise?
One way I agree with you is that we (and some animals) are social creatures who have superimposed rules of "normal" behavior ("what is the norm" ) upon the "natural" aspects of our behavior, via laws and social reactions. To one degree or another, human societies regard rape to be aberrant and anti-social and make it illegal. So in some meanings of the word, rape is a violation of our nature as social animals, and the perpetrator is usually aware that they are violating a social norm (and law). But is forced copulation the same? That takes more thought, since it implicates all those animals named above, in the question of whether it is "natural" or not.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
21 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobiefluid dynamics, complexity theory and mathematics.........highly amusing.
you mean like equating the behaviour of policemen and London rioters with rabbits and foxes, yes, that was highly amusing! I gotta put up there on my avatar thingy beside your other wonderful sayings.
21 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, and once I hit a Home Run off Nolan Ryan's 99mph fastball using nothing but a toothpick.
No the argument is valid, scientific dogma has resulted in a ludicrous assertion, embarrassing I know but I have not attacked the evolutionary hypothesis nor discredited it, it was simply not necessary in this instance, the claim and the way it was derived was ample cannon fodder as it stood.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
21 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobiedo you think that there is any credible argument for rape being part of the evolutionary process?
No the argument is valid, scientific dogma has resulted in a ludicrous assertion, embarrassing I know but I have not attacked the evolutionary hypothesis nor discredited it, it was simply not necessary in this instance, the claim and the way it was derived was ample cannon fodder as it stood.
21 Feb 14
Originally posted by JS357There are a number of issues here,
Upon proofing this before sending, I realize that it might be taken as somewhat satirical. It is not meant that way.
OK so I think there is evidence that "Forced copulation has been observed in ducks, lizards, monkeys, fruit flies, crickets, orangutans, chimpanzees, and countless other species."
This quote is from a link that disputes that the word "rape ...[text shortened]... it implicates all those animals named above, in the question of whether it is "natural" or not.
The absolute folly in equating animal behaviour with human and then drawing conclusions on that basis for what happens in the natural world may be good for animals but is absolutely disastrous for humans.
For example i am an aquarist, i keep fishes, the male guppy is splendiferously arrayed in comparison to the female, yet he pesters and pesters her until she is so exhausted that she eventually gives out and he ambushes her and mates. In some instances she is so stressed by the constant pursuit that she gives out entirety and dies, that is why its advisable to put a minimum of three females per single male, now to draw conclusions from this under the auspices , that 'nothing in biology makes sense unless seen through the prism of evolution' and to then superimpose that proposition in terms of human behaviour is nothing short of absurd.
Now we can quibble about what is natural and what is not, about definitions of this and that, but I suspect the vast majority of women have been absolutely devastated by their experience, because it violates every principle that we hold dear and that to state that its a natural consequence of some evolutionary mating strategy incomprehensible.
Humans cannot and should not be viewed through the same prism as animals and I contend with those who have done so that this type of thinking has led to this kind of assertion, that rape is natural.
21 Feb 14
Originally posted by stellspalfieNo , I reject all premises other than being a free moral agent and responsible for ones own actions, including genetics and hypothesised claims of inherited traits from some evolutionary strategy, I cannot emphasis this enough , I reject them all, absolutely and without reservation.
do you think that there is any credible argument for rape being part of the evolutionary process?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
21 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobiedo you think that there is any credible argument for anything being part of the evolutionary process?
No , I reject all premises other than being a free moral agent and responsible for ones own actions, including genetics and hypothesised claims of inherited traits from some evolutionary strategy, I cannot emphasis this enough , I reject them all, absolutely and without reservation.
21 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI asked you why the title of Dobzhanskys essay - 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution - appears to you to be 'scientific dogma'.Whatever that means.
Its not important to read and assimilate Dobzhanskys work, its simply elementary to understand how it is has been utilised dogmatically. Nor is the thread about evolution, its about the use of scientific dogma to support ludicrous and unsubstantiated assertions, how this could have evaded you is somewhat bewildering and I suspect known only to you.