A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos Atheist:
This just has to be a parody …
This has been going around on Twitter. I got it from Nathan Campbell, who notes that it may be a reason not to home-school.
Sometimes it’s the duck that gets it in the end:
Turk arrested for allegedly raping a duck
What does it mean to be more equal?
I think that is supposed to be a reference to Animal Farm (“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”).
Ahh…It’s been a really long time since I read Animal Farm. Did not pick up on the reference, obviously. Maybe I should pick it up again. Y’know before the ducks take over.
You really think she knows enough to reference Animal Farm?
Oh please. What are the chances this is from a real 14 year old girl? If it is, then she’s got quite the sense of humor. I think this writer is older and having some fun with his or her audience.
Of note, Animal Farm was required reading for my 8th grade class, so that would’ve been 13 and 14 year olds.
Gotta be A
Sorry. Phone typing sometimes goes wonky.
Gotta be a poe. Ducks are a very perverse species. They have homosexual pairings as well as sexual assaults, necrophilia, orgies, and extra-species sexual relations. Ducks are more raunchy than humans.
Imma go with Poe. With the spelling and strange humor, imma go with Brit-Poe.
Let’s review the facts:
1. She effectively raises the frequently-noted point that liberals claim to believe in natural selection but won’t follow it through to its obvious policy ramifications. She makes fun of the pro-homosexual and the Science-worship tendencies of the left at once.
2. She got you to read it, and a national audience.
I’d say that’s two points for the homeschoolers.
1. Failing to follow through to the policy ramifications of an fantastical and purposefully ignorant view of natural selection is not a problem for the “left”.
2. There are better ways of making a fool of yourself.
…but won’t follow it through to its obvious policy ramifications.
Mandatory breeding? Or else the ducks will outbreed us!
Nope I think he means that it should be mandatory that schools teach children how to cook duck a l’orange …
Attracting attention of the point and laugh style isn’t a win – that old saying about any publicity being good publicity just isn’t true. And you are revealing your complete lack of knowledge about how natural selection works. There are several mechanisms by which homosexuality in an individual is thought to provide an advantage for the offspring of close relatives, most obviously in the same way that close relatives who aren’t themselves breeders in such widely seperated species as wolves and wrens nevertheless help raise young, but also through more direct genetic quirks. There are lots of genes in our makeup which may disadvantage an individual with a strong expression of the trait in terms of producing their offspring, but when only partially expressed provide a very strong benefit to the overall population. Homosexuality appears to be one of them, seeing as it is not dying out.
Last I read, epigenetics seemed more implicated in homosexuality than actual specific genes. There is also the “older brother fraternal effect,” discovered by Dr, Anthony Bogaert. Briefly, the more male children a woman has, the more likely a son is to be gay. It’s an intrauterine effect, and recently studies have shown that male fetal cells can cross the placental barrier and end up in a woman’s brain. Maternal immunoreactivity to the male fetus or intrauterine hormone exposure might be involved. I’m not holding my breath for any definitive answer; where the brain is involved there always seem to be multiple paths to the same behavior.
Well, yes, I know that, although it’s always good to be reminded about the latest research. Given that poor Joeclark77 is clearly deficient in education, I wanted to introduce the concept of natural selection in the most basic way possible ;)
I know you wont believe this but I hate to tell you there are atheists with conservative political views and liberals who are devout members of a religion (even Christian ones). I know that to you politics and religion are one and the same but with all due respect, please pull your head out of your ass and quit spewing this politco-religio jibbar jabber you use to reinforce your vote and your faith.
There are, but none of them are on Patheos. The so called “Atheist Channel” except for one or two blogs is primarily about homosexuality and abortion… or hadn’t you noticed? I think most of these “atheist” bloggers are really liberal Democrats first, atheists only because they think it’s a convenient justification for the conclusions they already decided they’d like to reach.
Damn, you’re on to us, the entire atheist movement is just a cover for the water fowl takeover. As soon as we get agenda 21 passed legions of ducks will goose step out of ponds all across the US and take your bibles and your birdshot away.
CANADIAN geese, no doubt.
Once again. Ass, head, please remove it. You are making broad assumptions because it makes your world simpler and easy to fit into a neat little box. Get over it.
Wrong again chump … I’m here and I vote conservative.
Any other facts you’d like to enlighten me with?
Actually in my case it was exactly the opposite (Atheist then liberal).
Sexuality and procreative rights are real issues that religion consistently degrades, and a reasonably large proportion of people are active atheists because of religion’s disgusting and intrusive practices in these areas, so it stands to reason that they would be frequent subjects in our discussions.
“a reasonably large proportion of people are active atheists because of religion’s disgusting and intrusive practices in these areas”
Q. E. D.
“There are, but none of them are on Patheos.”
…. your quote.
“Wrong again chump … I’m here and I vote conservative.”
… my response.
… so yet again you’re just flat out wrong. Do you like being wrong or is it something that you just can’t help?
I believe that’s called quote mining. Congrats, you’ve officially slipped to Kirk Cameron levels of inanity.
You either don’t know what you are talking about or you are a liar. Telling obvious lies is a great way to lose all of your credibility at once. When your opinions are so out of line with reality that you need lies to defend them on the internet you have no excuses for not picking up on that fact. You’ve shifted the goalposts from atheists in general to atheist bloggers on patheos rather than simply admit that you were wrong.
Credibility = gone. Next time don’t use lies to defend your false opinions, use the truth to correct your false opinions.
Is she making fun of the left, or making fun of the right by taking their usual hobgoblins & making the absurd justifications more obviously absurd? I’m going to go with the latter, and guess that this is a literate Poe skewering the wingnut brigade.
So wanting equality makes you pro-something then. Would describe yourself as pro-woman and pro-black as you, presumably, think women should have the vote and segregation is wrong?
Gravity tells us that things fall down. Therefore, if you believe in gravity, it is hypocritical of you to use shelves!
Nah, she hasn’t raised any points, because people who’ve completed 8th grade in a decent school can’t get past her fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, revealed in the 1st paragraph. Evolution =/= movement toward higher complexity or intelligence.
What is it about ducks with these people, anyway? I recall years ago Bill O’Reilly denounced making gay marriage legal by saying that if marriage were not confined to man/woman pairs, a person might marry anything. “I could marry my duck!” said he.
He has a duck? Damn it, I want a duck!
1. I don’t think ducks have very far to go to out-evolve her (or her parents).
2. Perhaps ducks have out-evolved us…they haven’t tried to legislate inequality.
There is a third option to either losing to the ducks or defeating the ducks…
First, homosexuality might actually improve the long term viability of the human species. True, homosexual sex does not produce offspring but we’re less in a position to screw up from lack of numbers and more likely to screw things up because of high resource consumption and ecological degradation due to people living in affluent industrialized nations, the places where homosexuality is most likely to be best accepted. If it means more working adults without kids, it means more taxpayers paying for the retired (without adding the expense of more children) and more adults working paying taxes without kids. Not that homosexuals do not have kids, that was a total oversimplification but just to make a point that individuals not reproducing might not endanger a species at all.
Also, I’m very liberal but not a Democrat, but I reached these views mostly on economic issues as the evidence that libertarian economics just didn’t work, and that without some regulations workers get screwed while passive ownership gets massively rewarded. As for social issues, I never really looked at things like abortion as a huge issue since everyone I knew was raised with adequate sex education so they knew how contraception worked. My concern for this issue grew larger as I realized that all the kids in the wonderful “Bible Belt” get told that touching a condom will not just make God angry, but it will make you pregnant and that guys can all tell what girls aren’t virgins by the way they walk.
Also, I reached the conclusion that homosexuality is not wrong simply because I don’t see it causing any inherent damage. There are bad relationships, but I can’t see why it’s inherently wrong, and never heard an argument that wasn’t just a bunch of convoluted hand-waving.
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2014, Patheos. All rights reserved.