Peterkin

Equality under the law is simple: no individual has immunity from crime; the same criteria of proof apply to their trial and the same guidelines for sentencing are followed in every case. When it comes to 'other qualities', however, you'd need some metrics and standards to decide how much of each quality each person possesses and what each quality is worth. What measurement are you using, and what is the standard you apply?

Do you have 'better' evidence to support the argument that rape is right than the evidence supporting the argument that rape is wrong? OTOH, we have seen a great deal of reliable evidence supporting evolution and nothing but opinion to disprove it.

I sincerely hope your mundane thought is less chaotic than your virtual thought.

Looks like common field cap. Not poisonous, but not not recommended to eat, since it looks similar to several mushrooms that could make you sick. If you tasted one, you're probably fine. If you have small children, don't let them play in the yard until you've picked or raked up all the mushrooms.

Thank you!!! I would so like to believe that!

Back off, everybody! Sloooowly... He used The Big Bad Name. And now you must all stop eating ham, because it was oer of Hitler's favourite foods.

Only if you learn facts and the methods of scientific investigation at school. If you discover the scientific method all by yourself, I guess you're not indoctrinated by the village, but the down-side is, you have to start with the knowledge-base of 6000 BCE.

Better than what? In biology, which you consider irrelevant to biological taxonomy, you appear appallingly ignorant. Of paleontology, you seem entirely ignorant. As regards evolutionary theory, you appear misguided. Your knowledge of science appears to be spotty wikipedia readings. Your perception of atheism is skewed in ways I can't even fathom. *sigh!* another one of those

One little oddity about that rape and murder business and the Judeo-Christian-Islamic faiths: the holy book is full of god-recommended rapes and murders. Someone might be tempted to criticize that. Someone might be tempted to criticize the long bloody history of past ones, of Christians and Muslims imposing their own punitive, screwed-up morality on populations that had their own well-functioning social organization, and their campaigns to do so again with modern populations. Someone might be tempted to point out the immense wealth of the churches. Lilies of the field, they are not.

Not to biological taxonomy, it isn't! There are lots of other classifications and categories that work very well when discussing those other subjects. But if you attempt to transpose the terminology of one discipline into another discipline, you're speaking gibberish. As illustrated here. You can always take refuge in either the biblical version or the extraterrestrial school of thought. Just don't try to discuss it with scientists. Yes, and then....? What? god filled in the gaps with his magic crayon? It begs nothing: it merely demonstrates an equally willful ignorance of automobiles, a sub-group of motorized wheeled vehicles, a subgroup of wheeled vehicles, a subgroup of transport. You can create a system of categorizing everything in the world according to horsepower, but it would be meaningless without reference to how the horsepower is being used.

You can choose to call humans whatever you wanted, it wouldn't change the biology. You can classify any way you want, but will make no scientific sense. You can give any designation to like to any group and agree on that designation among your friends, but it won't help you communicate with anyone outside of that circle.

It is taught in schools, not as a single statement, but a body of knowledge: evidence painstakingly collected, assessed and compared over two hundred plus years of scientific endeavour. Outside of classrooms, there is also a considerable scholarly and popular literature on the subject, as well as accessible video presentations. That's not 'indoctrination'; that's education. He and many other scientists, with the aid of their well documented observations and sample collections, made a comprehensive theory out of disparate observations that had previously amounted to nothing more than opinion. That the simple observation of similarities supports the same conclusion further reinforces the soundness of the theory. That would be Genesis. Certainly, that book has been translated many times, but it has also been closely monitored by biblical scholars. But what has this to do with evolution? Only attackers of evolutionary theory say that. To those who understand it, there is nothing random about natural selection. Competition in nature is a fact; it doesn't require advocacy. Do you have the remotest idea what you're talking about? Classification is not arbitrary; it's systematic and logical. And your objection to atheists using taxonomy to count humans among the great apes who share 94-96% of our DNA, is.... what exactly? I very much doubt any atheist would hire a bonobo for an administrative position or engage in a philosophical debate with a gorilla - we're pretty much aware of the differences.

That's a personal view of art, yes. The similarities between the model and the porn actor seem to end at how they are judged, and do not encompass how they are treated or what they are required to do for a living. Still, I do not dispute that it's a version of reality that some people enjoy.

yea: Therefore, I didn't condemn art and sex education books, nude beaches or love scenes in a romantic film. My remarks were directed exclusively at pornography. Since it was in the title, I assumed it was eligible for discussion. As regards art, educational and literary merit, I have no opinion until I've seen the material in question.

To a large extent, yes, but we also bring our own experience and sensibility to an informed adult opinion. I came up in the sixties, embracing free love and appreciation of the sensual pleasures - and quite a lot of self-indulgence and irresponsibility that as part of that culture. But then came the grown-up struggles for human rights, reproductive rights, the protection of women from domestic and workplace abuse, of physically and mentally challenged people from discrimination, etc. One develops a certain regard for the privacy and dignity of individuals. Yes. Did she have a penis stuck in her anus and then her mouth? That's also work is work. I didn't bring up Hollywood movies. I'm sure actors and directors are embarrassed about the failures, but those don't make any money. How does that make pornography more respectable? Neither are hard porn and 'sexually suggestive content'. A lot of material is conflated in this topic, a wide range of imagery and activity. We may not all be thinking of the same material when we form an opinion of the ethics involved.