>> ^rychan:

I'm sure there's _some_ truth to his hypothesis -- consent is easier to establish when there is language.
But clearly consent _can_ be established without language.
Also, don't go all "myth of the noble savage" on us and think that the animal kingdom isn't full of rape. Ducks are so rapey that that it has significantly impacted their reproductive structures:
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/070501_duck.htm


Yeah, ducks are lothesome rapists of the worst kind. But the genital arms race they've gotten into is interesting because it's completely abnormal. What is generally adaptive is for females to choose their mates. For each rapey duck there are a thousand other species of birds where males compete to be chosen by being more attractive, strong, or useful than their rivals.

Animal rights are largely a scam.
We have no free will.
There are no natural rights.
Circumstances dictate our behavior.
Your money is controlled by people that aren't you.
You are a slave.
The Iraq seems to have been a bad thing, but an Iran war may not be that.
Cultural values are not equal.
Most people try to be nice to everyone, some are dicks.
The Internet is a dick-enhancing technology.
Religion is crazy.
Politicians are corrupt. All of them.
No one else wants what's good for you, they want what's good for them. You getting what's good is a side-effect.
Self-preservation and egoism is what drives the world.
Functioning genitals are wasted on the young.

Off the top of my head.

The worst thing about this lying genital wart? His goddamn eyes freak me the fuck out!

Upvote for showing genitals at the end.

http://videosift.com/video/Jon-Lajoie-Show-Me-Your-Genitals

I do not often feel the urge to state my admiration for a comment, but this time, I think, I must. Nice one.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Brothers and sisters.

As an atheist, and a fairly outspoken one at that, I don't feel like Hedges trying to mischaracterize myself or my atheism. I feel like he is trying to challenge me, to keep me from being hypocritical and to make sure that my anger is turned only towards those who do harm, regardless of faith.

I think his criticism of Harris and Hitch have more to do with American attitudes on the middle east than atheists attitudes. Most Americans, myself included, know very little about that region, and what little I/we do know is all negative - sexism, genital mutilation, death threats against cartoonists, jihad, terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, etc. I assume a more realistic picture of the middle east would more closely resemble people of any country. I assume they love their friends and family, that they wish for a better life and a better world for their kids, that they enjoy art and music, that they have skills and hobbies and struggle to make ends meet, that they laugh and joke and mock and criticize the extremists of their country the way we do in ours, that they are frustrated with politics and the power the privileged few lord over them... but portraying humanity of the people in the middle east is something that is simply not done in American media.

I believe that we atheists, who value tolerance, should be making these arguments ourselves, and not trying to brush it under the rug when one of our public figures gets called out. I'm sure if you go through my comments over the years, I've probably made countless fruitless, unproductive and spiteful things about religion. I'm going to make an effort to do and say things differently in the future.

I'm down for coexisting with good people of all walks of life. We all have a common enemy in the powerful individuals who have seized control of our country. I don't want to fight with well intentioned Christians anymore; I want to fight along side them. I want to embrace the social justice that has long been a tradition of both liberalism and Catholicism - among other religions. I want to embrace throwing the money changers out of our democratic temples. I want a society that can be judged on how it treats the least among us. I want to live in a tighter knit, more connected and stronger society; not a selfish, paranoid and weaker one.

I think Hedges sees the problems of our time with remarkable clarity. I'm not threatened by him.

>> ^rottenseed:

The problem with religion, though—as our friend Tim Minchin says—it teaches us to externalize blame. What I mean is, religion paints a very binary portrait of the world—of what's right and wrong. It doesn't teach relativity or tolerance. I think it's ok to assume that if we eliminate religion, the basis for that ignorance will lose power.

See, while I don't agree with everything Hedges said here, I think this is the kind of talk that he's referring to. That statement you made just painted all religions in one broad stroke and set it up as if it is "us," the intelligent and tolerant people, versus "them," the ignorant and intolerant masses. It's that kind of rhetoric that he (and I for that matter) find divisive and counterproductive. Religious people--many of them Christians--who would have agreed with you that it is wrong to deny basic human rights to people (such as the right to marry) on the basis of their sexuality are now painted as your opponents instead.

Furthermore, while certainly some forms of religion as practiced by certain peoples in certain countries at certain times do in fact fit your description of religion quite well, "religion" as a concept does not. There's nothing about religion per se that requires a binary worldview nor does it require a lack of relativity or tolerance. I'd definitely agree with you that some instantiations of religion, though, have turned out that way.

I said it in the Greta Christina Sift that I linked to above, but I'll say it more clearly now: I think attacking "religion" is Don Quixotic. Time is better spent attacking specific features of specific religions in specific contexts that result in suffering, such as the denial of marriage to homosexuals on religions grounds, female genital mutilation, and so forth. These kinds of things anger both theists and atheists and we should all work together to eliminate them rather than squabble with each other over our individual preference to believe or not believe in a particular religion.

Brothers and sisters.

As an atheist, and a fairly outspoken one at that, I don't feel like Hedges trying to mischaracterize myself or my atheism. I feel like he is trying to challenge me, to keep me from being hypocritical and to make sure that my anger is turned only towards those who do harm, regardless of faith.

I think his criticism of Harris and Hitch have more to do with American attitudes on the middle east than atheists attitudes. Most Americans, myself included, know very little about that region, and what little I/we do know is all negative - sexism, genital mutilation, death threats against cartoonists, jihad, terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, etc. I assume a more realistic picture of the middle east would more closely resemble people of any country. I assume they love their friends and family, that they wish for a better life and a better world for their kids, that they enjoy art and music, that they have skills and hobbies and struggle to make ends meet, that they laugh and joke and mock and criticize the extremists of their country the way we do in ours, that they are frustrated with politics and the power the privileged few lord over them... but portraying humanity of the people in the middle east is something that is simply not done in American media.

I believe that we atheists, who value tolerance, should be making these arguments ourselves, and not trying to brush it under the rug when one of our public figures gets called out. I'm sure if you go through my comments over the years, I've probably made countless fruitless, unproductive and spiteful things about religion. I'm going to make an effort to do and say things differently in the future.

I'm down for coexisting with good people of all walks of life. We all have a common enemy in the powerful individuals who have seized control of our country. I don't want to fight with well intentioned Christians anymore; I want to fight along side them. I want to embrace the social justice that has long been a tradition of both liberalism and Catholicism - among other religions. I want to embrace throwing the money changers out of our democratic temples. I want a society that can be judged on how it treats the least among us. I want to live in a tighter knit, more connected and stronger society; not a selfish, paranoid and weaker one.

I think Hedges sees the problems of our time with remarkable clarity. I'm not threatened by him.

^Hitchen's was a neocon back in the Bush days. Not sure if he is still. Sam Harris made some comments in his debate with Hedges that painted Muslims with a very broad brush, and were arguably racist. I think Sam's comments were more ignorant than actively racist. Most Americans (myself included) lack a real understanding of Islamic culture, so it's easy for us to categorize them as a bunch of crazy fundamentalists that like to mutilate female genitals and will kill you for making cartoons. Hedges made the point that most Muslims are just regular people trying to get by, and that the proportion of angry, violent Islamic fundamentalists was equal to that of angry, violent American fundamentalists. (Mini editorial: I think fundamentalism is a bigger problem than any individual religious or group, be that group Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Conservative, Libertarian, Liberal, Capitalist, Socialist, etc. When you believe your personal philosophy to be the living embodiment of goodness, holiness, liberty or perfection, you lose the ability for critical thought.)

Hedges is to be respected. We could use more like him.

>> ^Sagemind:

Jaw Drop!
Promote male genital mutilation (cause it's funny?)
Sorry - no upvote from me.
What makes this different from female mutilation? If a joke was ever made that inferred that female genital mutilation was funny, would people laugh?
Edit: I see this is in WTF but my opinion stands.


Apparently it's an ad campaign to get people to neuter their cats and dogs, hope that makes you feel better

>> ^Sagemind:

Jaw Drop!
Promote male genital mutilation (cause it's funny?)
Sorry - no upvote from me.
What makes this different from female mutilation? If a joke was ever made that inferred that female genital mutilation was funny, would people laugh?
Edit: I see this is in WTF but my opinion stands.


Jeez man. Genital mutilation isn't funny. Joking about doing it is, because no one has any intention of doing it. Some gorgeous blonde had a go at your nuts at some point in your life?

*Jaw Drop!
Promote male genital mutilation (cause it's funny?)
Sorry - no upvote from me.

What makes this different from female mutilation? If a joke was ever made that inferred that female genital mutilation was funny, would people laugh?

Edit: I see this is in WTF but my opinion stands.

Im not a doctor - but this was my first thought/prognosis

Elephantiasis (/ˌɛlɨfənˈtaɪ.əsɨs/ el-i-fən-ty-ə-sis) is a disease that is characterized by the thickening of the skin and underlying tissues, especially in the legs and male genitals. In some cases the disease can cause certain body parts, such as the scrotum, to swell to the size of a softball or basketball.[1] It is caused by filariasis or podoconiosis.[2]

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

For the people who think she's too young, keep in mind that her brain was, by all appearances, already a female brain when she came out of the womb.

Things like unusual embryonic hormonal events when the brain is at a crucial point of development but the genitals are not affects the brain and not the genitals.

Children with normal-gendered brains don't try to cut off their penis.

That society waited until she was 16 just shows how carefully this issue is approached.

maybe if it is your child who is genitally mutilated you will stop and think about what the reason is for this complete lack of human dignity
>> ^hpqp:

Stay classy. (<-- that's about all the time I feel like wasting on your ignorant drivel)
>> ^CaptainPlanet:

frankly your disgust comes off a bit conceited. Genital mutilation, or the mutilation of genitals, is never ok. as someone who claims to 'oppose' circumcision, how can you look in the mirror and see anything but an ugly face hypocrite? some people are so 'open minded' their brains really do fall out
as per your Brazilian girl, i'm sure she would love for you to tell her it was "elective surgery", bitch-fuck-holeintheass
you also said that you are lazy, which i am inclined to agree with. anyone who can quote laws strictly dictating these disgusting procedures not be administered to anyone under 18 and at the same time intentionally over looks the fact that the woman in question is 16, is a lazy piece of shit and hope you dead