Nevada Tea Party Candidate Angle: No Abortion for Victims of Rape Or Incest

Wingnuts • Views: 5,933

Nevada Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle, a former member of the completely insane Constitution Party who has written about the dangers of fluoridation (shades of the John Birch Society), is dodging the media.

And she has good reason to dodge. Her history is rife with extremism, questionable associations, and bizarre views. But unfortunately for Angle, in the Internet age it’s getting pretty difficult to hide this kind of craziness, and Sam Stein at the Huffington Post has posted an audio clip of just one of Angle’s extreme statements: Sharron Angle Opposes Abortion Even With Rape, Incest: ‘God Has A Plan’.

Manders: I, too, am pro life but I’m also pro choice, do you understand what I mean when I say that.

Angle: I’m pro responsible choice. There is choice to abstain choice to do contraception. There are all kind of good choices.

Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

Angle: Not in my book.

Manders: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

Angle: You know, I’m a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

Jump to bottom

140 comments
1 What, me worry?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:43:36am

Glad you posted this one. Thanks, Charles!

2 darthstar  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:45:55am
Angle: You know, I’m a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

Hey Sharron with two ‘r’s…Do you really think god wants 13 and 14 year old girls to get molested by parents/relatives/siblings? Is that part of his “plan”? What kind of fucked up person are you?

3 Kragar (Antichrist )  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:46:10am
Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

Angle: Not in my book.

When you make all your decisions and judgements in life based on one book, you’re bound to turn out as stupid as Angle

4 Summer Seale  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:46:13am

Ignorant politicians cite God in mysterious ways.

5 Kragar (Antichrist )  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:47:56am

re: #2 darthstar

Hey Sharron with two ‘r’s…Do you really think god wants 13 and 14 year old girls to get molested by parents/relatives/siblings? Is that part of his “plan”? What kind of fucked up person are you?

So by her logic, does that mean if someone gets crushed by a falling tree, we shouldn’t call 911, since it would be against God’s plan?

6 thedopefishlives  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:48:19am

re: #5 Kragar (proud to be kafir)

So by her logic, does that mean if someone gets crushed by a falling tree, we shouldn’t call 911, since it would be against God’s plan?

But what if God’s plan included you calling 911?

/See what kind of games we can play now?

7 Gus  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:48:34am
Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

Angle: Not in my book.

In other words she’s also against abortion even if not having one threatens the life of the mother — because the mother’s death would be a part of “God’s plan.”

8 jc717  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:49:04am

Wow. What an awesome philosophy for life: everything is god’s plan.
The poor are poor, the rich are rich, the sick are sick all because of god’s plan.

See, you don’t need to have empathy for those less fortunate, as it’s all part of god’s plan.

9 brennant  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:49:10am

Totally frightening.

10 What, me worry?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:49:28am
Angle: You know, I’m a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

I’m not a Christian. I do not believe God has a plan and purpose for us. That would take away free will, wouldn’t it. In fact, God gave us free will to be able to make our own choices and decisions based on the moral foundation She presents us.

[God is no more male than female, so excuse me if I make a gender choice.]

Rape does not fall into anyone’s choice, I can guarantee.

11 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:50:22am

Harry Reid, you are one lucky sonuvabitch.

12 sffilk  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:50:42am

Someone might want to remind this “person” that according to some religious views, the fetus isn’t considered a viable human being until it’s born. But then again, I’m guessing someone like Ms. Angle only cares about only certain religious groups, none of which are (and you’ll excuse me for this) Jewish.

13 Kragar (Antichrist )  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:50:49am

re: #6 thedopefishlives

But what if God’s plan included you calling 911?

/See what kind of games we can play now?

Now what if God’s plan was having humanity discover how to perform abortions so we could have the option in certain cases?

14 thedopefishlives  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:51:03am

re: #13 Kragar (proud to be kafir)

Now what if God’s plan was having humanity discover how to perform abortions so we could have the option in certain cases?

Hush, you’re spoiling the narrative.

15 darthstar  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:51:06am

re: #6 thedopefishlives

But what if God’s plan included you calling 911?

/See what kind of games we can play now?

You’d think after 6,000 years god would have learned to use a phone himself by now. Omnipotent, my ass.

16 Gus  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:51:14am

This is hilarious in that the people that support these knuckle draggers are the same people that claim to admire the works of Ayn Rand and think of themselves as “John Galt.”

17 Kragar (Antichrist )  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:51:49am

re: #11 Slumbering Behemoth

Harry Reid, you are one lucky sonuvabitch.

God has a plan!

18 EdDantes  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:52:17am

Forgive me if this has been posted here before but it concerns “Gods will”

A farmer is in Iowa during a flood. The river is overflowing, with water surrounding the farmer’s home up to his front porch. As he is standing there, a boat comes up, The man in the boat says “Jump in, I’ll take you to safety.”

The farmer crosses his arms and says stubbornly, “Nope, I put my trust in God.”

The boat goes away. The water rises to the second floor. Another boat comes up, the man says to the farmer who is now in the second story window, “Jump in, I’ll save you.”

The farmer again says, “Nope, I put my trust in God.”

The boat goes away. Now the water is up to the roof. As The farmer stands on the roof, a helicopter comes over, and drops a ladder. The pilot yells down to the farmer “I’ll save you, climb the ladder.”

The farmer says “Nope, I put my trust in God.”

The helicopter goes away. The water continues to rise and sweeps the farmer off the roof. He drowns.

The farmer goes to heaven. God sees him and says “What are you doing here?”

The farmer says “I put my trust in you and you let me down.”

God says, “What do you mean, let you down? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!!!”

19 darthstar  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:52:21am

re: #8 jc717

Wow. What an awesome philosophy for life: everything is god’s plan.
The poor are poor, the rich are rich, the sick are sick all because of god’s plan.

See, you don’t need to have empathy for those less fortunate, as it’s all part of god’s plan.

I can’t wait until she loses so I can call her and tell her that it was god’s plan that she keep Harry Reid in office.

20 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:52:59am

There’s so much crazy right wing crap going around today, I’m having a hard time deciding which stories to cover.

21 darthstar  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:53:05am

re: #11 Slumbering Behemoth

Harry Reid, you are one lucky sonuvabitch.

God loves Harry Reid.

22 HappyWarrior  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:53:19am

re: #16 Gus 802

This is hilarious in that the people that support these knuckle draggers are the same people that claim to admire the works of Ayn Rand and think of themselves as “John Galt.”


Isn’t it? I always get a huge kick out of social conservatives who strongly admire the Randian world view.

23 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:53:47am

God has a plan for girls to get raped by their fathers, brothers and uncles and produce teratogenetic babies?

Huh.

24 What, me worry?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:54:32am

re: #12 sffilk

Someone might want to remind this “person” that according to some religious views, the fetus isn’t considered a viable human being until it’s born. But then again, I’m guessing someone like Ms. Angle only cares about only certain religious groups, none of which are (and you’ll excuse me for this) Jewish.

Well, an unborn child can be viable in the last trimester. Lots of babies survive long and healthy lives who are born prematurely.

If you abide by religious Judaism, than an abortion can only be performed if the mother’s health is at risk.

[Link: www.aish.com…]

25 Kragar (Antichrist )  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:54:45am

re: #22 HappyWarrior

Isn’t it? I always get a huge kick out of social conservatives who strongly admire the Randian world view.

Right up there with Che worshippers who overlook his whole mass murderer history because he was a “Socialist freedom fighter”

26 sffilk  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:54:54am

re: #20 Charles

There’s so much crazy right wing crap going around today, I’m having a hard time deciding which stories to cover.

Do them all? Is that possible?

27 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:55:03am

re: #17 Kragar (proud to be kafir)

I bet Sen. Reid is thanking Him everyday for handing him this election on a silver platter. I can’t stand Reid, but even I’d vote for him against this Angle loon. Epic fail.

28 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:55:47am

re: #16 Gus 802

This is hilarious in that the people that support these knuckle draggers are the same people that claim to admire the works of Ayn Rand and think of themselves as “John Galt.”

99% of those people have never read Ayn Rand, because if they did they would be appalled and disgusted. She had almost nothing in common with the modern right wing; the fact that they all cite her is a case of massive cognitive dissonance.

29 Kragar (Antichrist )  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:56:21am

re: #27 Slumbering Behemoth

I bet Sen. Reid is thanking Him everyday for handing him this election on a silver platter. I can’t stand Reid, but even I’d vote for him against this Angle loon. Epic fail.

I can’t stand Reid, but I’d vote for him over this dumbass any day.

30 darthstar  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:56:24am

re: #20 Charles

There’s so much crazy right wing crap going around today, I’m having a hard time deciding which stories to cover.

Create an “Aggregate of Crazy” thread, and “Anthology of Assholishness”, if you will.

31 darthstar  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:56:40am

re: #30 darthstar

Create an “Aggregate of Crazy” thread, and “Anthology of Assholishness”, if you will.

and = an
PIMF

32 thedopefishlives  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:56:43am

I still don’t get this worldview that expects God to be a micro-manager who deliberately plans out every single instant of every single day. While I’m not one to ever accuse God of taking a laissez-faire approach to the world, He is abundantly clear that people have the power of choice. Divine intercession is the exception, rather than the rule.

33 lawhawk  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:57:53am

I’ve found that people who claim that they know what G-d intended for us to do are people that should be studiously avoided because they really don’t have a clue and are looking to impose a worldview that is actually quite detached from reality.

I’m a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

G-d has a plan? And you know better than others what that plan is?

Sorry, but that just rubs me the wrong way. No one has a direct phone line with the Big Guy upstairs and can purport to tell anyone else what He has in store for us down here.

We should try to live our lives righteously and respectfully. Using abortion to save the life of a mother is more than justified or to spare a woman giving birth to a child conceived by rape is compassionate - giving that woman the option to do so is compassionate. The laws around the country generally reflect that compassion.

I find abortion to be abhorrent and wish it wouldn’t be necessary, but there are circumstances where it is. And that’s protected under our laws.

34 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:58:21am

re: #12 sffilk

Someone might want to remind this “person” that according to some religious views, the fetus isn’t considered a viable human being until it’s born. But then again, I’m guessing someone like Ms. Angle only cares about only certain religious groups, none of which are (and you’ll excuse me for this) Jewish.

You shouldn’t show off your ignorance like that. It’s disgusting.

35 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:58:25am

re: #28 Charles

99% of those people have never read Ayn Rand, because if they did they would be appalled and disgusted. She had almost nothing in common with the modern right wing; the fact that they all cite her is a case of massive cognitive dissonance.

Certainly not the Religious Right in any case, she was massively atheistic

36 Political Atheist  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:59:07am

So Angle thinks one can run and hide, and run for office at the same time. Hmmm. Honestly this thinking reminds me of the Jeff Foxworthy email going around. You may be a Taliban if….

37 HappyWarrior  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:59:20am

re: #25 Kragar (proud to be kafir)

Right up there with Che worshippers who overlook his whole mass murderer history because he was a “Socialist freedom fighter”


Yep, I always get a huge kick of people who wear Che shirts hence why I am buying this shirt from the Onion’s website that has a picture of Che wearing a Che shirt on it.

38 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 11:59:48am

re: #10 marjoriemoon

[snip]
[God is no more male than female, so excuse me if I make a gender choice.]

Isn’t it the author of the fiction who gets to determine the gender of his/her characters?

39 What, me worry?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:00:09pm

re: #28 Charles

99% of those people have never read Ayn Rand, because if they did they would be appalled and disgusted. She had almost nothing in common with the modern right wing; the fact that they all cite her is a case of massive cognitive dissonance.

LOL so true!

I think they like the capitalism part and the non-socialist part, but they’d clash big time trying to fit their religiosity (?) into their Rand-World-View. Rand wasn’t big on charity or things like allowing disabled persons to live (they do not contribute to society and therefore drag it down), and she certainly didn’t believe in God in any form, let alone Jesus.

40 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:00:58pm

re: #28 Charles

99% of those people have never read Ayn Rand, because if they did they would be appalled and disgusted. She had almost nothing in common with the modern right wing; the fact that they all cite her is a case of massive cognitive dissonance.

Particularly true for those who spit out the word “elitist” as an epithet.

41 thedopefishlives  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:02:12pm

re: #37 HappyWarrior

Yep, I always get a huge kick of people who wear Che shirts hence why I am buying this shirt from the Onion’s website that has a picture of Che wearing a Che shirt on it.

Che, the legacy

42 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:02:32pm

re: #10 marjoriemoon

I’m not a Christian. I do not believe God has a plan and purpose for us. That would take away free will, wouldn’t it. In fact, God gave us free will to be able to make our own choices and decisions based on the moral foundation She presents us.

[God is no more male than female, so excuse me if I make a gender choice.]

Rape does not fall into anyone’s choice, I can guarantee.

I thought that Judaism, in general, holds that while ‘gender’ is too small a lens through which to comprehend Him, G-d is best framed as a “He” in our small minds? Please correct me here…I realized that i honestly don’t know.

43 Yashmak  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:03:20pm

re: #5 Kragar (proud to be kafir)

So by her logic, does that mean if someone gets crushed by a falling tree, we shouldn’t call 911, since it would be against God’s plan?

Seriously. If, by that some logic, someone DOES get an abortion, wouldn’t that then be part of God’s plan too?

44 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:03:41pm

re: #40 Slumbering Behemoth

Particularly true for those who spit out the word “elitist” as an epithet.

Ain’t that the truth.

The very core of Rand’s “philosophy” (to give it a dignity it don’t deserve) is elitism.

45 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:04:21pm

re: #25 Kragar (proud to be kafir)

Right up there with Che worshippers who overlook his whole mass murderer history because he was a “Socialist freedom fighter”

Where is the line between mass murder and collateral damage?

46 Ming  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:05:23pm

I’m sure that many, many others join me in feeling grateful to Charles for bringing these statements to light, especially since Ms. Angle might well become a Senator from Nevada. As Charles is performing this good service, it behooves us to wonder where on earth is much of the media? The bad craziness of people like Sharron Angle should be front-and-center in the media. This is as loony as Jeremiah Wright. I’m old enough to remember a time when the crazies were on the left. Seems like the right is working hard to catch up.

47 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:06:16pm

re: #45 b_sharp

Where is the line between mass murder and collateral damage?

He was a distant, romantic figure who died early, which meant that the ugly truth never managed to catch up with him while he was still alive and allowed him to die shrouded in a myth and remains fairly intact to this day.

48 HappyWarrior  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:06:16pm

Gosh I never thought about it that way but Rand’s philosophy is yeah absolutely elitist. I remember we saw the film adaptation of the Fountainhead when I took philosophy my junior year of high school. I failed to see anything heroic about Howard Roarke. Just thought he was a selfish jerk and the old interview of Rand on Donahue she came across as really egotistical and condescending. I had a wonderful philosphy teacher this all said. Guy was a master at playing devil’s advocate.

49 What, me worry?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:07:02pm

re: #42 Aceofwhat?

I thought that Judaism, in general, holds that while ‘gender’ is too small a lens through which to comprehend Him, G-d is best framed as a “He” in our small minds? Please correct me here…I realized that i honestly don’t know.

I was probably being more silly than anything.

I believe HE was used because it’s a man’s world and male gender is usually the default. More specifically, IT would be better but then it would be rather impersonal I suppose.

“We are created in God’s image” I don’t believe relates to physical image. It’s our souls which are created in God’s image.

I don’t have a better answer.

50 Yashmak  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:07:07pm

This sort of topic always reminds me of the Templars in the movie “Kingdom of Heaven”, who by simply shouting the phrase “GOD WILLS IT!” over and over again, justify whatever action they want to take.

51 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:07:24pm

I continue to wonder why “God’s plan” never seems to include the actions of people to mitigate harm.

It’s God’s plan that someone become a rapist, and rape some poor woman, and impregnate her. But somehoe we are to believe that it couldn’t possibly be God’s plan for a surgeon to terminate the pregnancy.

If God has any plan at all regarding such things, it is that he plans for us to use the brains we are given and the compassion with which we are imbued to do the right thing.

52 Yashmak  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:08:14pm

re: #51 Fozzie Bear


If God has any plan at all regarding such things, it is that he plans for us to use the brains we are given and the compassion with which we are imbued to do the right thing.

Quoted for Truth.

53 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:08:51pm

re: #44 Cato the Elder

There’s the cognitive dissonance with the Teahadi types. Deploring elitism while admiring the work of someone who is so demonstrably pro-elitist.

54 What, me worry?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:09:59pm

re: #48 HappyWarrior

Just thought he was a selfish jerk and the old interview of Rand on Donahue she came across as really egotistical and condescending.

Wow I recently saw that, maybe a few months ago or last year. It’s 5 parts on youtube. From the 70s, after her husband passed away.

She first came on looking like this sweet, fiesty little old lady, but by the end, the audience was gasping and her outrageous statements.

55 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:10:11pm

re: #46 Ming

This kind of stuff will get lots of play come sept. or oct.

56 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:10:11pm

re: #49 marjoriemoon

I was probably being more silly than anything.

“We are created in God’s image” I don’t believe relates to physical image. It’s our souls which are created in God’s image.

I don’t have a better answer.

THAT i agree with wholeheartedly!! I just got curious about the tradition.

57 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:10:28pm

re: #33 lawhawk

I’ve found that people who claim that they know what G-d intended for us to do are people that should be studiously avoided because they really don’t have a clue and are looking to impose a worldview that is actually quite detached from reality.

G-d has a plan? And you know better than others what that plan is?

Sorry, but that just rubs me the wrong way. No one has a direct phone line with the Big Guy upstairs and can purport to tell anyone else what He has in store for us down here.

We should try to live our lives righteously and respectfully. Using abortion to save the life of a mother is more than justified or to spare a woman giving birth to a child conceived by rape is compassionate - giving that woman the option to do so is compassionate. The laws around the country generally reflect that compassion.

I find abortion to be abhorrent and wish it wouldn’t be necessary, but there are circumstances where it is. And that’s protected under our laws.

Predicting what another human being will do, even when that human is part of your immediate family is more than a little difficult. Trying to predict the plans of an omniscient, omnipotent being is just foolhardy. And a bit arrogant.

IMHO, the suggestion that everyone follow a specific path based on a 2000 year old book is nothing more than an attempt to control backed up by the most outrageous appeal to authority possible.

58 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:13:44pm

re: #51 Fozzie Bear

I continue to wonder why “God’s plan” never seems to include the actions of people to mitigate harm.

Because she’s failing. Job is a better example. The lesson is that our suffering does not go unnoticed by God, and that remaining faithful to Him (i.e. by not blaming Him) during bad times is a sentiment that He will reward in the future.

The lesson is NOT that God’s plan is for us to rape each other…or that we shouldn’t mitigate the consequences of others’ harmful actions.

She’s an idiot.

59 Sionainn  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:14:17pm

re: #27 Slumbering Behemoth

I bet Sen. Reid is thanking Him everyday for handing him this election on a silver platter. I can’t stand Reid, but even I’d vote for him against this Angle loon. Epic fail.

Reid is getting my vote because of the good he has done for the people of Nevada…not because of his sparkling personality. //

60 lostlakehiker  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:14:37pm

Rape and incest are the best reasons there are for an abortion.

For starters, yuck. Having to give birth to your rapist’s child? No way. Or Daddy’s?

And then we proceed to less visceral reasons.

Evolution is real, and it operates in real time in human societies. If pregnancies resulting from rape are routinely aborted, the evolutionary reward for rape [the rapist gets to sire children on the victim, and children are the coin of the realm when it comes to evolution] is blunted. The evolutionary cost for rape [if you get caught, you’ll be jailed and then you’ll be out of circulation for much or all of the rest of your breeding years], will remain. The incidence of rape figures to fade over the span of several generations. Fewer people around with a disposition to commit rape.

In the case of incest, there is a more immediate practical point. Incest matches detrimental recessive genes that would otherwise be masked by a healthy allele from the other parent. Children that result from an incestuous match are, both in theory and in fact, far more likely to have all sorts of hereditary defects. They are more likely to require institutionalization, less likely to be able to keep pace in mainstream schooling, and more likely to require expensive medical intervention.

This is not to say that a woman ought to be forced to get an abortion if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. But if she decides on one, that’s almost certainly the right decision from the point of view of the wider society.

61 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:16:40pm

re: #59 Sionainn

Reid is getting my vote because of the good he has done for the people of Nevada…not because of his sparkling personality. //

I wouldn’t know about any of that, I don’t live in Nevada. I have visited several times though, and I’d vote for Reid as POTUS if he could just manage to teach you people how to drive properly.
///

62 HappyWarrior  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:17:37pm

re: #54 marjoriemoon

Wow I recently saw that, maybe a few months ago or last year. It’s 5 parts on youtube. From the 70s, after her husband passed away.

She first came on looking like this sweet, fiesty little old lady, but by the end, the audience was gasping and her outrageous statements.


I can’t believe it’s on youtube. My teacher had it on tape. But yeah that’s how I remember it. I remember being particularly amazed that she actually looked down on people who gave to charity. Guess that’s why I as I said earlier I get a kick when so called Christians quote her like a prophet.

63 Yashmak  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:18:37pm

re: #60 lostlakehiker

I don’t there’s a relevant evolutionary reward for rape, really. If there was, and it was that that drove rapists, it would have long since faded from our society, as children produced from such unions are (and have been for a long time) a vanishingly small percentage of the whole.

Rather, rape is not an instinctual behavior, it is a conscious choice.

Just my opinion.

64 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:19:01pm

re: #62 HappyWarrior

I can’t believe it’s on youtube. My teacher had it on tape. But yeah that’s how I remember it. I remember being particularly amazed that she actually looked down on people who gave to charity. Guess that’s why I as I said earlier I get a kick when so called Christians quote her like a prophet.

Because cognitive dissonance requires cognition as a necessary prerequisite.

65 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:19:31pm

re: #47 ralphieboy

He was a distant, romantic figure who died early, which meant that the ugly truth never managed to catch up with him while he was still alive and allowed him to die shrouded in a myth and remains fairly intact to this day.

Thanks for the reply, but you didn’t answer my question. I’ve heard people complain that figures like Che and Castro are mass murderers, but that the civilian deaths in places like Dresden, Hiroshima, and so on are collateral damage. There must be an essential difference, or at least a point on a continuum, where damage becomes murder, or vice versa. Where is the line? Is it the political beliefs of the agents, the type of people killed, the physical proximity, the underlying justification, or something else?

66 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:21:16pm

re: #63 Yashmak

I don’t there’s a relevant evolutionary reward for rape, really. If there was, and it was that that drove rapists, it would have long since faded from our society, as children produced from such unions are (and have been for a long time) a vanishingly small percentage of the whole.

Rather, rape is not an instinctual behavior, it is a conscious choice.

Just my opinion.

Civilization as we know it is so incredibly young compared to our species. There is no way traits such as that being discussed, if they existed on a genetic level, could have been “bred out” of humanity during the incredibly short span of western civilization, relative to the ages that precede us.

67 Yashmak  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:22:22pm

re: #65 b_sharp

Thanks for the reply, but you didn’t answer my question. I’ve heard people complain that figures like Che and Castro are mass murderers, but that the civilian deaths in places like Dresden, Hiroshima, and so on are collateral damage. There must be an essential difference, or at least a point on a continuum, where damage becomes murder, or vice versa. Where is the line? Is it the political beliefs of the agents, the type of people killed, the physical proximity, the underlying justification, or something else?

The difference is that Dresden was a target of a military organization engaged in a declared total war, not driven by a single personality. Different situations entirely.

68 Yashmak  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:24:45pm

re: #66 Fozzie Bear

Civilization as we know it is so incredibly young compared to our species. There is no way traits such as that being discussed, if they existed on a genetic level, could have been “bred out” of humanity during the incredibly short span of western civilization, relative to the ages that precede us.

Yes, do you actually think there currently exists an evolutionary reward for rape in most of the civilized world? As I stated, I cannot see one, given that result from such unions are an extremely miniscule portion of the whole.

69 SpaceJesus  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:25:21pm

absolutely disgusting.


references made to any religion by a politician in a non-secular manner in a way that affects politics should be made illegal by state and or federal statute.

70 What, me worry?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:25:30pm

re: #58 Aceofwhat?

Because she’s failing. Job is a better example. The lesson is that our suffering does not go unnoticed by God, and that remaining faithful to Him (i.e. by not blaming Him) during bad times is a sentiment that He will reward in the future.

The lesson is NOT that God’s plan is for us to rape each other…or that we shouldn’t mitigate the consequences of others’ harmful actions.

She’s an idiot.

hehe I couldn’t help by giggle. You’re right on.

This was such an ego driven statement she made, as she looks down her nose at these poor OTHER woman. Not her. Because you know, she’s better than these woman because she wasn’t brutally raped. “Look at me,” she’s saying, “God loves me more because he doesn’t have to teach me with those lessons.”

Angle: You know, I’m a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

“God’s plan for me doesn’t include rape, like your plan does.”

71 lostlakehiker  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:27:54pm

re: #28 Charles

99% of those people have never read Ayn Rand, because if they did they would be appalled and disgusted. She had almost nothing in common with the modern right wing; the fact that they all cite her is a case of massive cognitive dissonance.

Ayn Rand got her start in life in the Soviet Union. What she saw repelled her, and she flew to the opposite pole. If the Soviets said that 2+2=4, she’d say it was 5. Her whole life amounted to a scream of rage against collectivism, and by extension, against any sort of cooperative behavior except strict quid pro quo.

It’s hard to blame her for hating that system. She just got delusions of grandeur and set herself up as a philosopher. No one mortal is in a position to start from scratch and erect a logically coherent and humanly useful philosophy. It’s not clear that collectively [snicker] we know enough to do so, or that we ever will. We’ll probably have to muddle along.

72 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:28:03pm

re: #60 lostlakehiker

Rape and incest are the best reasons there are for an abortion.

For starters, yuck. Having to give birth to your rapist’s child? No way. Or Daddy’s?

And then we proceed to less visceral reasons.

Evolution is real, and it operates in real time in human societies. If pregnancies resulting from rape are routinely aborted, the evolutionary reward for rape [the rapist gets to sire children on the victim, and children are the coin of the realm when it comes to evolution] is blunted. The evolutionary cost for rape [if you get caught, you’ll be jailed and then you’ll be out of circulation for much or all of the rest of your breeding years], will remain. The incidence of rape figures to fade over the span of several generations. Fewer people around with a disposition to commit rape.

In the case of incest, there is a more immediate practical point. Incest matches detrimental recessive genes that would otherwise be masked by a healthy allele from the other parent. Children that result from an incestuous match are, both in theory and in fact, far more likely to have all sorts of hereditary defects. They are more likely to require institutionalization, less likely to be able to keep pace in mainstream schooling, and more likely to require expensive medical intervention.

This is not to say that a woman ought to be forced to get an abortion if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. But if she decides on one, that’s almost certainly the right decision from the point of view of the wider society.

That will only work if predatory desires are controlled by the genes. Many cases of predatory action are environmental, or a combination of genetics and environment. Of course this doesn’t mean rape is not a good justification for abortion, but it does make your specific argument less convincing especially to the staunch pro-life group who tend more to the environmental end of the argument.

73 funky chicken  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:30:12pm

re: #11 Slumbering Behemoth

Harry Reid, you are one lucky sonuvabitch.

unbelievable, isn’t it?

74 Sionainn  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:32:19pm

re: #61 Slumbering Behemoth

I wouldn’t know about any of that, I don’t live in Nevada. I have visited several times though, and I’d vote for Reid as POTUS if he could just manage to teach you people how to drive properly.
///

Hey, it’s not “us,” it’s all the transplants from all over the U.S.

75 What, me worry?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:32:26pm

re: #71 lostlakehiker

Ayn Rand got her start in life in the Soviet Union. What she saw repelled her, and she flew to the opposite pole. If the Soviets said that 2+2=4, she’d say it was 5. Her whole life amounted to a scream of rage against collectivism, and by extension, against any sort of cooperative behavior except strict quid pro quo.

It’s hard to blame her for hating that system. She just got delusions of grandeur and set herself up as a philosopher. No one mortal is in a position to start from scratch and erect a logically coherent and humanly useful philosophy. It’s not clear that collectively [snicker] we know enough to do so, or that we ever will. We’ll probably have to muddle along.

Lots of people came out of WWI Russia and didn’t feel the way she felt. Particularly Jews who, indeed, hated that system, who were survived despite that system’s brutality, but came out on the other side feeling compassion and empathy, unlike Ayn Rand.

76 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:34:52pm

re: #63 Yashmak

I don’t there’s a relevant evolutionary reward for rape, really. If there was, and it was that that drove rapists, it would have long since faded from our society, as children produced from such unions are (and have been for a long time) a vanishingly small percentage of the whole.

Rather, rape is not an instinctual behavior, it is a conscious choice.

Just my opinion.

I’d say it was both. There is no need for a specific trait to have positive selection for it to propagate. The allele, if there is one, for male predatory behaviour, may be translucent to selection (positive or negative), or it may ‘hitchhike’ along with an allele that does have positive selection pressure, or it may be neutral under most conditions.

77 funky chicken  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:35:06pm

re: #27 Slumbering Behemoth

I bet Sen. Reid is thanking Him everyday for handing him this election on a silver platter. I can’t stand Reid, but even I’d vote for him against this Angle loon. Epic fail.

My parents will probably just stay home. They despise Reid, but they aren’t gonna vote for this gal.

78 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:37:35pm

Regardless of any discussions about rape, morality and theology, the point is that Sharron is miles off the American mainstream. There are lots of people who are morally against abortion but are more than reasonable about certain exceptions.

And even those American who oppose abortion would have second thoughts about someone forcing their daughter to carry to term the child of a rapist or incestuous violator.

But Ms Right Angle is showing the weakness of the Teabaggers and the extreme right: they will cling to their conservative principles at all costs. They might try to hide them for tactical purposes, but they are always tempted to let something slip and let us know just how they feel.

79 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:40:11pm

re: #77 funky chicken

My parents will probably just stay home. They despise Reid, but they aren’t gonna vote for this gal.

Nail - head - hit. Is there a bigger GOP fail right now than this race?

80 Yashmak  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:40:38pm

re: #76 b_sharp

I’d say it was both. There is no need for a specific trait to have positive selection for it to propagate. The allele, if there is one, for male predatory behaviour, may be translucent to selection (positive or negative), or it may ‘hitchhike’ along with an allele that does have positive selection pressure, or it may be neutral under most conditions.

I would grant that possibility, but again it doesn’t seem to indicate that the specific behavior of rape is something that can ever be “bred out” of our society…as it may be (as you imply) a combination of gene-controlled general tendencies towards dominance, or aggression, coupled with ‘learned’ behavior and conscious choice. Personally, I suspect this behavior is far more driven by personal choice that genetic pre-disposition.

81 Yashmak  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:41:41pm

re: #80 Yashmak

“personal choice THAN genetic pre-disposition” - correction

82 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:43:01pm

re: #67 Yashmak

The difference is that Dresden was a target of a military organization engaged in a declared total war, not driven by a single personality. Different situations entirely.

So as long as it is a declared war, lead by a group rather than an individual, deaths are collateral damage, or the normal result of war?

OK, let’s consider a hypothetical. A country is run by a totalitarian regime, unconcerned about the general population, and a group of people from that population get together to topple the regime but do not declare war and are forced to use gorilla tactics against the regime because they have no outside base to operate from and no weapons that can be used from a distance. If civilians die during an attack on the regime’s forces, is it murder or collateral damage?

I really do want to know, because the separation has never made sense to me.

83 lostlakehiker  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:44:35pm

re: #65 b_sharp

Thanks for the reply, but you didn’t answer my question. I’ve heard people complain that figures like Che and Castro are mass murderers, but that the civilian deaths in places like Dresden, Hiroshima, and so on are collateral damage. There must be an essential difference, or at least a point on a continuum, where damage becomes murder, or vice versa. Where is the line? Is it the political beliefs of the agents, the type of people killed, the physical proximity, the underlying justification, or something else?

These sorts of questions are hard going. Whenever a war measure figures to produce mass civilian casualties, one must consider the alternatives. What harm lies down that path, or that?

The Bible weighs in—-one may destroy the crops in the field, to deprive the enemy of food, but one may not chop down an orchard. The second war measure is too lopsidedly collateral damage and vandalism.

So now we come to Hiroshima and Dresden. With Hiroshima, Truman faced several grim facts. First, an invasion of the Japanese home islands was going to be a bloody affair. Expected US casualties ran into the hundreds of thousands. If Japanese lives mattered, (and if they didn’t, why worry about Hiroshima?) then expected Japanese casualties ran into the millions.

On top of that, there was the matter of food supply in Japan. Food was running short already in August 1945. With our naval blockade essentially perfect, and with the disruption of transport that goes with an air campaign against coastal and inter-island shipping and against railroads, famine was inevitable. The Army would have first claim on what food was at hand, so it would be civilians (and our own POW’s, of course) who starved. Our POW’s were already dying of hunger. Again, millions of lives stood to be lost if the war went on.

Japan was showing no signs of being willing to slap the mat. Unless something really attention-getting happened, she was going to fight on. And on. And on.

Against this backdrop, then, the bombing of Hiroshima seems the lesser of a smorgasbord of ghastly evils. It’s not wanton and gratuitous vandalism. It’s a war measure, getting things over so life can return to a civilian rhythm and a benign purpose.

Dresden was another story. With the Battle of the Bulge concluded victoriously and our armies closing on an all but undefended Rhine, with the Soviets rolling through shattered remnants of the Wehrmacht in East Prussia, there could be no doubt but that the war would soon be over in the European theater. Neither was there any reason to hope that some dramatic blow would shatter German will to resist. After Stalingrad, after the firebombing of Hamburg, after the twin summer defeats of the flower of the German army in Normandy and in Byelorussia, and the failure of the assassination attempt on Hitler, it would have been evident to all that only with the fall of Berlin would the war end.

But bombing Dresden would not help there. Nothing of any particular military value was in Dresden. It’s out of the way of a Soviet advance on Berlin. War industry is moot; Germany has no fuel to operate any fresh equipment and no way to transport newly made ammo to the front.

The firebombing of Dresden was more nearly vandalism than war.

In short, Hiroshima=crops in the field, Dresden=orchard.

84 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:45:28pm

re: #68 Yashmak

Yes, do you actually think there currently exists an evolutionary reward for rape in most of the civilized world? As I stated, I cannot see one, given that result from such unions are an extremely miniscule portion of the whole.

I think you have an overly simplistic view of evolution. Neutral drift has a bigger impact in the spread of genes than either positive or negative selection.

85 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:46:45pm

re: #82 b_sharp

So as long as it is a declared war, lead by a group rather than an individual, deaths are collateral damage, or the normal result of war?

OK, let’s consider a hypothetical. A country is run by a totalitarian regime, unconcerned about the general population, and a group of people from that population get together to topple the regime but do not declare war and are forced to use gorilla tactics against the regime because they have no outside base to operate from and no weapons that can be used from a distance. If civilians die during an attack on the regime’s forces, is it murder or collateral damage?

I really do want to know, because the separation has never made sense to me.

My .02 (because this is an interesting question and i’m intruding) is that “collateral damage” = civilian casualties as a [debatably] unintended consequence of action to pursue a military target..

whereas

“murder” = killing civilians, either through gross negligence (I’m looking at you, Stalin) or as a MEANS to acheive a military goal.

How did i do?

86 Sionainn  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:47:16pm

Jon Ralston will be interviewing Angle tonight at 6:30 p.m. (PST). You might be able to pick up the interview here.

87 sffilk  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:47:16pm

re: #34 Cato the Elder

You shouldn’t show off your ignorance like that. It’s disgusting.

I’m Jewish, and I had checked this out. What was ignorant? That I knew what I was talking about or that I accused Ms. Angle of only listening to certain religious groups?

88 CuriousLurker  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:49:08pm

re: #65 b_sharp

I’ve heard people complain that figures like Che and Castro are mass murderers, but that the civilian deaths in places like Dresden, Hiroshima, and so on are collateral damage. There must be an essential difference, or at least a point on a continuum, where damage becomes murder, or vice versa. Where is the line? Is it the political beliefs of the agents, the type of people killed, the physical proximity, the underlying justification, or something else?

Excellent question. I’m going to ponder it.

89 lostlakehiker  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:49:23pm

re: #75 marjoriemoon

Lots of people came out of WWI Russia and didn’t feel the way she felt. Particularly Jews who, indeed, hated that system, who were survived despite that system’s brutality, but came out on the other side feeling compassion and empathy, unlike Ayn Rand.

Jews have a good system of ethics and they don’t have to invent their own from scratch, individually, or buy into the State’s.

Jews also weren’t, initially, the special and specific targets of the Soviet state. [That was to change, later.] Rand came from a “class enemy” background.

90 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:54:10pm

re: #84 b_sharp

I think you have an overly simplistic view of evolution. Neutral drift has a bigger impact in the spread of genes than either positive or negative selection.

updinged because evolution is fun, but Dennett would say that selection is required in order to transform neutral drift into a heritable trait; in other words, selection is the process through which drift is channeled into actual change.

what do you think?

91 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:57:56pm

re: #80 Yashmak

I would grant that possibility, but again it doesn’t seem to indicate that the specific behavior of rape is something that can ever be “bred out” of our society…as it may be (as you imply) a combination of gene-controlled general tendencies towards dominance, or aggression, coupled with ‘learned’ behavior and conscious choice. Personally, I suspect this behavior is far more driven by personal choice that genetic pre-disposition.

I think we need to divide the idea of choice into at least two interconnected aspects, rational/voluntary choice, and irrational/involuntary choice. Rational choice is something I would hazard to say both of us are familiar with, but I suspect you have no experience with irrational choices. Because choices are made in the brain and are made even before we become conscious of them, disruptions of electrochemical balance and/or previously set pathways can cause choices to be made that are irrational and based on a distorted sense of reality.

Personally, I believe genetics gives a predisposition towards predatory behaviour and environmental issues remove all normal constraints. I also believe that even in people without any genetic predisposition, environmental issues can cause irrational choices to be made.

92 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 12:58:10pm

re: #90 Aceofwhat?

updinged because evolution is fun, but Dennett would say that selection is required in order to transform neutral drift into a heritable trait; in other words, selection is the process through which drift is channeled into actual change.

what do you think?

Stephen Colbert to members of Devo

“I don’t believe in devloution because I don’t believe in evolution. I believe in intelligent decline!”

93 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:01:06pm

re: #83 lostlakehiker

These sorts of questions are hard going. Whenever a war measure figures to produce mass civilian casualties, one must consider the alternatives. What harm lies down that path, or that?

The Bible weighs in—-one may destroy the crops in the field, to deprive the enemy of food, but one may not chop down an orchard. The second war measure is too lopsidedly collateral damage and vandalism.

So now we come to Hiroshima and Dresden. With Hiroshima, Truman faced several grim facts. First, an invasion of the Japanese home islands was going to be a bloody affair. Expected US casualties ran into the hundreds of thousands. If Japanese lives mattered, (and if they didn’t, why worry about Hiroshima?) then expected Japanese casualties ran into the millions.

On top of that, there was the matter of food supply in Japan. Food was running short already in August 1945. With our naval blockade essentially perfect, and with the disruption of transport that goes with an air campaign against coastal and inter-island shipping and against railroads, famine was inevitable. The Army would have first claim on what food was at hand, so it would be civilians (and our own POW’s, of course) who starved. Our POW’s were already dying of hunger. Again, millions of lives stood to be lost if the war went on.

Japan was showing no signs of being willing to slap the mat. Unless something really attention-getting happened, she was going to fight on. And on. And on.

Against this backdrop, then, the bombing of Hiroshima seems the lesser of a smorgasbord of ghastly evils. It’s not wanton and gratuitous vandalism. It’s a war measure, getting things over so life can return to a civilian rhythm and a benign purpose.

Dresden was another story. With the Battle of the Bulge concluded victoriously and our armies closing on an all but undefended Rhine, with the Soviets rolling through shattered remnants of the Wehrmacht in East Prussia, there could be no doubt but that the war would soon be over in the European theater. Neither was there any reason to hope that some dramatic blow would shatter German will to resist. After Stalingrad, after the firebombing of Hamburg, after the twin summer defeats of the flower of the German army in Normandy and in Byelorussia, and the failure of the assassination attempt on Hitler, it would have been evident to all that only with the fall of Berlin would the war end.

But bombing Dresden would not help there. Nothing of any particular military value was in Dresden. It’s out of the way of a Soviet advance on Berlin. War industry is moot; Germany has no fuel to operate any fresh equipment and no way to transport newly made ammo to the front.

The firebombing of Dresden was more nearly vandalism than war.

In short, Hiroshima=crops in the field, Dresden=orchard.

So in other words, intent has an influence on how it is interpreted historically?

94 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:04:45pm

re: #85 Aceofwhat?

My .02 (because this is an interesting question and i’m intruding) is that “collateral damage” = civilian casualties as a [debatably] unintended consequence of action to pursue a military target..

whereas

“murder” = killing civilians, either through gross negligence (I’m looking at you, Stalin) or as a MEANS to acheive a military goal.

How did i do?

You can jump in anytime Ace, I value your opinion.

Interesting as it is, your definition would make Hiroshima/Nagasaki an act of murder, would it not?

95 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:05:15pm

re: #93 b_sharp

So in other words, intent has an influence on how it is interpreted historically?

Would you accept ‘necessity’ as a substitution for intent? It can be quite reasonably argued, i think, that Hiroshima/Nagasaki were necessary. Dresden…much harder. Causing civilian death is evil…so collateral damage = necessary evil, perhaps, whereas unnecessary civilian death = just evil…hmmm. I think i like that.

96 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:06:05pm

re: #93 b_sharp


There was also the Air Power theory that Bomber Harris clung to that destroying enough cities would bring Germany to its knees.

Once a theory gets rolling and gets people and thier reputations wrapped up in being identified with it, it is nearly impossible to stop, even when the facts prove otherwise as you mentioned in your post.

97 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:08:02pm

re: #94 b_sharp

You can jump in anytime Ace, I value your opinion.

Interesting as it is, your definition would make Hiroshima/Nagasaki an act of murder, would it not?

No, for the reasons posted above, and because we took the extra step of dropping leaflets on the cities and warning the Japanese government that we were about to raze the cities in a manner they could not foresee.

The destruction was necessary to prevent much greater destruction, and further, we were the aggrieved nation to begin with. Japan bore the responsibility for both the war, and for the lives of their citizens by refusing to say ‘uncle’.

98 lostlakehiker  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:19:33pm

re: #93 b_sharp

So in other words, intent has an influence on how it is interpreted historically?

Well, in the case of Hiroshima and Dresden, intent, versus the actual outcomes, you get the same answer. It’s not as if the decision makers at the time imagined things would turn out differently from how they actually did.

99 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:23:16pm

re: #90 Aceofwhat?

updinged because evolution is fun, but Dennett would say that selection is required in order to transform neutral drift into a heritable trait; in other words, selection is the process through which drift is channeled into actual change.

what do you think?

I think he is missing the point. Neutral drift is the propagation of an allele, or set of alleles through probability. They are immediately inheritable, propagate through the population and signify existing change. The difference between a neutral trait, a beneficial trait and a detrimental trait is how environmental selection operates on them at any given time. With a neutral trait, nothing in the environment gives the vehicle of that trait an advantage or disadvantage over any other member of the population. If the environment changes, or another trait pops to supplement the first one, then the trait can take on a positive or negative property.

It isn’t that a neutral trait isn’t inheritable, it is, it is how that trait affects the ratio of members with the trait and those without in the population.

A trait that is immediately beneficial will propagate slowly within the population, a trait that is immediately deleterious will fairly quickly disappear, but a neutral trait can be part of the majority of the population before it becomes beneficial or deleterious. Neutral drift is almost a necessity for the rapid change required by PuncEq.

100 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:26:45pm

re: #95 Aceofwhat?

Would you accept ‘necessity’ as a substitution for intent? It can be quite reasonably argued, i think, that Hiroshima/Nagasaki were necessary. Dresden…much harder. Causing civilian death is evil…so collateral damage = necessary evil, perhaps, whereas unnecessary civilian death = just evil…hmmm. I think i like that.

A practical necessity? I understand that, but then we have Che’s actions which would have been practical in his opinion, and necessary for his goals.

I think this question is more complex than most people consider.

101 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:27:03pm

re: #99 b_sharp

I think it worth noting that a trait can only be said to be beneficial, neutral, or deleterious relative to the current environmental context of the species.

In other words, as the environment changes, what is beneficial for the individual and the species in the context of that change does too.

102 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:29:14pm

re: #97 Aceofwhat?

No, for the reasons posted above, and because we took the extra step of dropping leaflets on the cities and warning the Japanese government that we were about to raze the cities in a manner they could not foresee.

The destruction was necessary to prevent much greater destruction, and further, we were the aggrieved nation to begin with. Japan bore the responsibility for both the war, and for the lives of their citizens by refusing to say ‘uncle’.

Don’t forget, my answer was before your addition of ‘necessary’. Sometimes this out of sequence debate structure gets confusing.

103 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:29:17pm

re: #101 Fozzie Bear

I cite as an example, the gene for Sickle Cell Anemia. In an environment devoid of malaria, it is a net hindrance. In the presence of malaria, it is a net benefit.

104 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:33:51pm

re: #98 lostlakehiker

Well, in the case of Hiroshima and Dresden, intent, versus the actual outcomes, you get the same answer. It’s not as if the decision makers at the time imagined things would turn out differently from how they actually did.

What I meant was not that the outcome wasn’t intended but the justification of why they did it. Hiroshima was to reduce the ultimate number of deaths, so the justification we would consider a necessary evil, but with Dresden the justification was to test a bomb, or something to that effect, which we would now consider just evil.

Is that closer?

105 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:34:50pm

re: #101 Fozzie Bear

I think it worth noting that a trait can only be said to be beneficial, neutral, or deleterious relative to the current environmental context of the species.

In other words, as the environment changes, what is beneficial for the individual and the species in the context of that change does too.

Yup. See my #99

106 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:36:07pm

re: #100 b_sharp

A practical necessity? I understand that, but then we have Che’s actions which would have been practical in his opinion, and necessary for his goals.

I think this question is more complex than most people consider.

It is complex.

However, Che did much more than kill during battles. Executions, murders, tribunals…these are not collateral damage. Much of Che’s butchery was not under the pretense of capturing a military objective, but rather silencing dissidents, right? Isn’t that a huge difference?

107 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:36:22pm

Looks like I’ve been abandoned. [sniff, sob, sniff]

108 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:36:34pm

re: #102 b_sharp

Don’t forget, my answer was before your addition of ‘necessary’. Sometimes this out of sequence debate structure gets confusing.

yep, no problem, got it-

109 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:44:43pm

re: #106 Aceofwhat?

It is complex.

However, Che did much more than kill during battles. Executions, murders, tribunals…these are not collateral damage. Much of Che’s butchery was not under the pretense of capturing a military objective, but rather silencing dissidents, right? Isn’t that a huge difference?

Did countries such as Canada and the US not execute traitors and/or deserters during WWI and WWII?

Were the dissidents Che killed not agents of the government? (I could be very wrong here)

110 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:44:45pm

re: #99 b_sharp

I think he is missing the point. Neutral drift is the propagation of an allele, or set of alleles through probability. They are immediately inheritable, propagate through the population and signify existing change. The difference between a neutral trait, a beneficial trait and a detrimental trait is how environmental selection operates on them at any given time. With a neutral trait, nothing in the environment gives the vehicle of that trait an advantage or disadvantage over any other member of the population. If the environment changes, or another trait pops to supplement the first one, then the trait can take on a positive or negative property.

It isn’t that a neutral trait isn’t inheritable, it is, it is how that trait affects the ratio of members with the trait and those without in the population.

A trait that is immediately beneficial will propagate slowly within the population, a trait that is immediately deleterious will fairly quickly disappear, but a neutral trait can be part of the majority of the population before it becomes beneficial or deleterious. Neutral drift is almost a necessity for the rapid change required by PuncEq.

I actually agree. I don’t know if he’s missing the point so much as overstressing it. Yes, the environment often selects the most beneficial aggregation of traits. However, I think he overstresses the process…some traits, neither harmful nor deleterious, can simply be spread through dumb luck.

111 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:46:38pm

re: #109 b_sharp

Did countries such as Canada and the US not execute traitors and/or deserters during WWI and WWII?

Were the dissidents Che killed not agents of the government? (I could be very wrong here)

I don’t think so.

[Link: www.cubaarchive.org…]

112 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:46:49pm

re: #110 Aceofwhat?

I actually agree. I don’t know if he’s missing the point so much as overstressing it. Yes, the environment often selects the most beneficial aggregation of traits. However, I think he overstresses the process…some traits, neither harmful nor deleterious, can simply be spread through dumb luck.

(emphasis mine)

That is the definition of neutral drift - sheer dumb luck.

113 dr. luba  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 1:49:22pm

re: #89 lostlakehiker

My father was a state enemy—his father was a carpenter who had a small business and occasionally hired workers to help him. This made my grandfather (and, by transitive properties, my father) a kurkul/kulak; the Soviets murdered him during the collectivization period. My father’s family were thrown off their land and forced to fend for themselves as best they could. They survived the Holodomor (Great Famine-Genocide) and WWII.

He is a kind, gentle man. Living through all of this gave him a grater reverence for life and the importance of treating others humanely, along with a passionate dislike of state communism. He was one of the few Republicans I know who not only opposed the Iraq war from the start, but opposed Bush early on.

Not everyone who suffers becomes cruel, unfeeling and supercilious.

114 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 2:00:27pm

re: #111 Aceofwhat?

I don’t think so.

[Link: www.cubaarchive.org…]

OK, now I see where we have diverged. The snippets of biographies I have read dealt with his history fighting against Batista, where most here probably focus on his actions on behalf of the Castro government. My concern was about a group fighting against an oppressive government and how collateral damage is viewed in that context.

Mind, you the question is still pretty sticky.

115 Yashmak  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 2:00:47pm

re: #84 b_sharp

I think you have an overly simplistic view of evolution. Neutral drift has a bigger impact in the spread of genes than either positive or negative selection.

I guess that when it comes right down to it, I believe that rape is more a product of an individual’s personal choice than of genetics. To try and claim it is driven by genetics absolves the perpetrators (even if only partially) of guilt. I don’t dispute that genetics may play a role in some degree of pre-disposition towards the crime, but I think the whole idea of introducing some evolutionary aspect was misguided, and my comments were intended to reflect that point of view.

116 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 2:04:05pm

re: #114 b_sharp

OK, now I see where we have diverged. The snippets of biographies I have read dealt with his history fighting against Batista, where most here probably focus on his actions on behalf of the Castro government. My concern was about a group fighting against an oppressive government and how collateral damage is viewed in that context.

Mind, you the question is still pretty sticky.

Is it too naive to suggest that even when fighting against an oppressive government, one needs to keep POW’s, guard civilians when possible, etc? I thought Che was famous for butchering those with whom he disagreed, whether or not they surrendered peacefully?

117 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 2:05:20pm

re: #112 b_sharp

(emphasis mine)

That is the definition of neutral drift - sheer dumb luck.

Agree completely. I’ve still not yet finished the book, but so far i’d say that Dennett attributes more to natural selection / design space than I would be comfortable with. Still, it’s a fun exercise.

118 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 2:11:38pm

re: #115 Yashmak

I guess that when it comes right down to it, I believe that rape is more a product of an individual’s personal choice than of genetics. To try and claim it is driven by genetics absolves the perpetrators (even if only partially) of guilt. I don’t dispute that genetics may play a role in some degree of pre-disposition towards the crime, but I think the whole idea of introducing some evolutionary aspect was misguided, and my comments were intended to reflect that point of view.

I respect your view, and wanted to know more about it.

I’m not sure why people commonly believe genetics can absolve people of their actions, all it does is force us to examine the event more closely without jumping to conclusions, and then take the best steps to protect society.

If predation is purely genetic (it isn’t, this is just a hypothetical musing) then our only option would be to put the perp away permanently. If it is purely environmental, then we have a chance to repair the damage and the perp will be reintroduced into society at some point. If it is unknown whether the predation is mostly genetic or mostly environmental, then we have to take a close look before deciding what to do. This has a better chance of giving people who can be helped the opportunity to reenter society while still hanging on to those with no hope of changing. (And yes, mistakes will be made on occasion).

119 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 2:11:46pm

B, and others…going upstairs…good stuff

120 Yashmak  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 2:11:53pm

re: #82 b_sharp

OK, let’s consider a hypothetical. A country is run by a totalitarian regime, unconcerned about the general population, and a group of people from that population get together to topple the regime but do not declare war and are forced to use gorilla tactics against the regime because they have no outside base to operate from and no weapons that can be used from a distance. If civilians die during an attack on the regime’s forces, is it murder or collateral damage?

I really do want to know, because the separation has never made sense to me.

I don’t think the answer is ever truly clear to anyone who has to make such a decision. I know that the carpet bombing of German cities in WWII were a source of deep concern for many allied air officers for this very reason.

I suspect that if a line can be drawn, it is in the intent of such an attack combined with the belief that the attack will forward the overall effort of the campaign. While I know from the history books that the prevailing wisdom of the allied air forces that led to the bombing of Dresden was that it would break the will of the German civilian populace, work would cease, and the German military industry would cease meaningful production. That this didn’t turn out to be the case doesn’t change the fact that the officers in charge honestly believed it would.

I find it a bit more difficult to believe that Che honestly believed the killings he and his conducted would contribute/lead to the achievement of his revolutionary goals.

In answer to your #93, I believe intent is a major part of the distinction.

In the case you mention, if the attacks were against military targets, or governmental targets, it could be argued that associated civilian deaths were collateral damage. However, if the civilians themselves were targeted as part of the guerilla campaign (a la Hamas’ attacks on Israeli civilians), with no real expectation of it furthering the goals of unseating the regime, I suspect that would be considered murder.

121 Yashmak  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 2:16:19pm

re: #118 b_sharp

I respect your view, and wanted to know more about it.

I understood your genuine curiosity :) That’s why I took no offense when you said I oversimplified genetics…after all, I was trying to steer away from genetics as a major factor in the occurrence of rape. :)

I apologize that it took me a while to get around to stating my point of view clearly.

Oh, and believe me…I would never claim to be an expert on genetics. My sum total education on the matter was a couple of college biology courses some 18 years in the past!

122 Yashmak  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 2:17:43pm

ugh…messed up the blockquote in #120 above…sorry.

123 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 2:18:03pm

re: #116 Aceofwhat?

Is it too naive to suggest that even when fighting against an oppressive government, one needs to keep POW’s, guard civilians when possible, etc?

I’m not sure I understand civilized war all that well either. War kills people, usually indiscriminately and should be avoided if possible. When it comes to protecting yourself and your family, anything goes.

If you want to be able to take the moral high ground, and be historically viewed as in the right, then you are right.

I thought Che was famous for butchering those with whom he disagreed, whether or not they surrendered peacefully?

Now, after talking to you, I’m not sure. I think a bit of research is needed.

I’m going to need to think a bit more about this.

124 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 2:26:34pm

re: #117 Aceofwhat?

Agree completely. I’ve still not yet finished the book, but so far i’d say that Dennett attributes more to natural selection / design space than I would be comfortable with. Still, it’s a fun exercise.

I like Dennet’s work, but I like Dawkins even more.

I spent a couple of years on the talk.origins news group reading books and posts from the biologists there, as well as taking the opportunity to ask them questions. I then spent a few years at FreeRepublic, not because I’m right of centre, but because of the constant opportunity to engage creationists. I learned a lot there, both from my own need to research my answers and from reading the posts of a group of like minded scientists.

I was there until pretty much all of us got kicked out.

125 Yashmak  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 2:27:00pm

re: #123 b_sharp

Now, after talking to you, I’m not sure. I think a bit of research is needed.

I’m not sure I understand civilized war all that well either. War kills people, usually indiscriminately and should be avoided if possible. When it comes to protecting yourself and your family, anything goes.

Let’s be honest. There’s no such thing as a civilized war. War is fundamentally UN-civilized. The distinction between murder and collateral damage is never more blurred than during war. We talk about the killing of surrendering prisoners as murder, but it has occurred on both sides in every major conflict in history… sometimes it has been punished as brutality, sometimes it has been considered a necessity of the circumstances.

One point of view would be that the only civilized way to fight a war is to keep it as short as possible. Another would say that war should be so brutal as to remind folks for a long long time why they should keep it as the path of last resort. Lately, a new idea, that war CAN be fought in a civilized manner, minimizing casualties amongst civilians, etc. etc. has been introduced. The fact that we almost weekly read about women and children being killed by drone attacks, or (during the Iraq war) as part of some bombing raid, should prove beyond a doubt that no matter how hard an organization tries to make war more politically correct, it will NEVER be a civilized affair. Murder vs. collateral damage, it’s all really semantics when you come right down to it. It’s all killing.

126 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 2:29:26pm

re: #122 Yashmak

ugh…messed up the blockquote in #120 above…sorry.

Yashmak, I really enjoyed the discussion. We’ll have to do it again, maybe on a different subject (this one I have to rethink).

I’m going upstairs.

127 b_sharp  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 2:30:55pm

re: #125 Yashmak

Let’s be honest. There’s no such thing as a civilized war. War is fundamentally UN-civilized. The distinction between murder and collateral damage is never more blurred than during war. We talk about the killing of surrendering prisoners as murder, but it has occurred on both sides in every major conflict in history… sometimes it has been punished as brutality, sometimes it has been considered a necessity of the circumstances.

One point of view would be that the only civilized way to fight a war is to keep it as short as possible. Another would say that war should be so brutal as to remind folks for a long long time why they should keep it as the path of last resort. Lately, a new idea, that war CAN be fought in a civilized manner, minimizing casualties amongst civilians, etc. etc. has been introduced. The fact that we almost weekly read about women and children being killed by drone attacks, or (during the Iraq war) as part of some bombing raid, should prove beyond a doubt that no matter how hard an organization tries to make war more politically correct, it will NEVER be a civilized affair. Murder vs. collateral damage, it’s all really semantics when you come right down to it. It’s all killing.

You deserve more than one upding for that post.

128 Eclectic Infidel  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 2:32:10pm

re: #4 Summer

Ignorant politicians cite God in mysterious ways.

Really. Where did Jesus speak out against abortion in the NT? Weaving religious fundamentalism into public policy is never a good idea but some conservatives think it’s still one of the best ideas on the table, right alongside laissez-faire economics.

129 Eclectic Infidel  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 2:34:28pm

re: #8 jc717

Wow. What an awesome philosophy for life: everything is god’s plan.
The poor are poor, the rich are rich, the sick are sick all because of god’s plan.

See, you don’t need to have empathy for those less fortunate, as it’s all part of god’s plan.

In my opinion, citing terrible things as part of “G-d’s Plan” is really just another way to argue for moral relativism.

130 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 2:47:18pm

Note that Sharron Angle is saying people who commit rape or incest are doing God’s work.

131 Sionainn  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 3:07:19pm

re: #130 Charles

Note that Sharron Angle is saying people who commit rape or incest are doing God’s work.

That’s what is sounds like to me.

132 Sionainn  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 3:07:37pm

is = it

PIMF

133 Right Brain  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 3:53:48pm

Why does a moderate sounding platform of lower taxes and smaller more efficient government always end up as bizarre positions re: rape and incest? What chemist discovered this strange compound of hate for the government bonded with a new government that would enforced birth?

134 TimPowers  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 5:47:39pm

Back to the original statement Angle made — if we leave “God’s will” out of it, we’re left with the fact tht a fetus either is, or is not, a human being. If it’s not, then an abortion involves only one person, and that person can do as she pleases and there’s no cause for anybody to get upset at all. But if a fetus is a human being, then two people are involved, and you can’t kill one of them just because his or her dad was a rapist, or because his or her parents were closely related.

Or if you can, then you should logically be allowed to kill anybody who was conceived during a rape, or incest, regardless of age.

If you look at three people — a rapist, a victim, and a esulting child — and you tell me you want to kill one of them, I’m all for it! But it’s crazy to point the gun at the kid.

135 Kruk  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 6:07:13pm

re: #18 EdDantes

Forgive me if this has been posted here before but it concerns “Gods will”

A farmer is in Iowa during a flood. The river is overflowing, with water surrounding the farmer’s home up to his front porch. As he is standing there, a boat comes up, The man in the boat says “Jump in, I’ll take you to safety.”

The farmer crosses his arms and says stubbornly, “Nope, I put my trust in God.”

The boat goes away. The water rises to the second floor. Another boat comes up, the man says to the farmer who is now in the second story window, “Jump in, I’ll save you.”

The farmer again says, “Nope, I put my trust in God.”

The boat goes away. Now the water is up to the roof. As The farmer stands on the roof, a helicopter comes over, and drops a ladder. The pilot yells down to the farmer “I’ll save you, climb the ladder.”

The farmer says “Nope, I put my trust in God.”

The helicopter goes away. The water continues to rise and sweeps the farmer off the roof. He drowns.

The farmer goes to heaven. God sees him and says “What are you doing here?”

The farmer says “I put my trust in you and you let me down.”

God says, “What do you mean, let you down? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!!!”

There was a man who prayed every day “Dear God, please let me win the lottery!”

One day, just as he finished his prayer, there was a flash of lightning and a voice boomed across the heavens. “Meet me halfway! Just once, buy a ****ing lottery ticket!”

136 Kruk  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 6:10:19pm

re: #21 darthstar

God loves Harry Reid.

Not to mention Obama, Pelosi and the Democratic Party. The political climate has never been so good for GOP gains, and they seem intent on blowing it by nominating the most unelectable candidates imaginable.

The GOP: Never failing at failing to seize the opportunity.

137 Kruk  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 6:20:52pm

re: #90 Aceofwhat?

updinged because evolution is fun, but Dennett would say that selection is required in order to transform neutral drift into a heritable trait; in other words, selection is the process through which drift is channeled into actual change.

what do you think?

Heh. I’m only halfway down this facinating thread (and reading the evolution stuff with great interest.) I really hope someone doen’t come in later on with “It is teaching evolution that leads to abortions!”

138 Kruk  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 6:26:54pm

re: #96 ralphieboy

There was also the Air Power theory that Bomber Harris clung to that destroying enough cities would bring Germany to its knees.

Once a theory gets rolling and gets people and thier reputations wrapped up in being identified with it, it is nearly impossible to stop, even when the facts prove otherwise as you mentioned in your post.

It’s also worth remembering that the defeat of Germany wasn’t the foregone conclusion in 1944 that it is to us now. The Germans were developing and deploying jet flighters (the Me 262 is the most famous, but hardly the only one), cruise missiles (V1), ballistic missiles (V2), a four engined “America bomber”, and even had an atomic programme. A successfull atomic weapon mated to any one of those delivery platforms could have swung the war. It didn’t happen, of course, but the Allies had no way of knowing that.

139 Kruk  Tue, Jun 29, 2010 6:32:39pm

re: #118 b_sharp

If predation is purely genetic (it isn’t, this is just a hypothetical musing) then our only option would be to put the perp away permanently.

Slightly off topic, but I’ve always felt that those who argue that thier crimes were due to genetics should be required to have themselves permanently and irreversibly sterilised before running that defense. How do they expect a jury to believe it if they themselves aren’t willing to act on it?

140 aacon  Wed, Jun 30, 2010 2:59:35pm

I’m probably posting to dead thread, but what the hell…

I seem to have different take than most people who have posted here. I’m pro-choice (up to a point… third trimester abortions should not be allowed except in the case of danger to the mother) but I’ve mellowed in my views of pro-lifers over the years. I don’t view them as the knuckle-draggers as I once did because I’ve come to realize that they frame the debate differently than me. Whereas I view it as a matter of a choice about a woman’s body and some tissue that is not yet human, they view it as the taking of a human life. We can debate till the cows come home about who is right, but the bottom line is that they sincerely believe this. If I believed that a fetus was a full-fledged human being from the moment of conception I’d be against abortion too.

Which brings us to the rape/incest issue. It’s always bugged me that many pro-lifers who claim that abortion is wrong because you’re killing a human being can so easily add on the “except in the case of rape or incest” clause. Oh I see, it’s a human being but somehow it’s less than sacred now because of the circumstances of it’s conception… something it had absolutely no control of. Go ahead and kill it. It’s completely hypocritical.

I disagree w/ Angle on her abortion views but I say kudos to her for at least being consistent.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 97 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0