Rape is a mating strategy

Originally posted by stellspalfie
actually the foxes were the police, the bunnies were the rioters. of course you are going to try and compare all things 'bunny' with all things 'rioter' to make it look absurd. rather than go down that tiresome old route, why not actually debate the point. if you are so confident comparisons should not be made then you can stick to the crux of the argum ...[text shortened]... udy is not comparing any other attribute.

so, is it wrong to compare in this case? if so why?

When you accept that looking at human behaviour through the prism of the evolutionary hypothesis and scientific dogma is pure folly! then we can talk.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
How do you square this with the near approval granted toward this heinous crime by your scripture?

I am glad you mention it for here we have an apparently rational study, which looking through the prism of the evolutionary hypothesis and scientific dogma concludes that rape is 'natural', wow, even if we juxtapose the Biblical laws incumbent upon the ancient Israelites while ignoring your sensationalistic journalism of 'near approval for rape', I don't think the Bible would ever make the claim that rape is 'natural'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So when the conscious has been suppressed, why do people rape? Surely it is for the exact same reason as why animals rape?

Perhaps you might like to research the subject of why men rape and report back to us for the fact is, we are endowed with the faculty of conscience.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Insidiously dangerous?

Yes its dangerous because as soon as you make the claim that something is 'natural' it can open the door for all kinds of attempts at justification, that is why its dangerous, now the article attempts to state that just because something is natural does not mean that its right but even a tenuous link can be manipulated and utilised as a justification, flip sake Mengele even attempted to justify his atrocities on children in the field of genetics stating that society would thank him!

Who will join me in condemning looking at human behaviour through the prism of scientific dogma?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Perhaps you might like to research the subject of why men rape and report back to us

I know perfectly well why men rape, its right there in the OP. You however are denying it, so I am asking you what your alternative explanation might be.

.....for the fact is, we are endowed with the faculty of conscience.
You did say that men rape when their faculty of conscience has been suppressed. You however did not explain why such suppression should lead to rape.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Who will join me in condemning looking at human behaviour through the prism of scientific dogma?

Its a loaded question. I don't think the example in the OP involves scientific dogma.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I know perfectly well why men rape, its right there in the OP. You however are denying it, so I am asking you what your alternative explanation might be.

[b].....for the fact is, we are endowed with the faculty of conscience.
You did say that men rape when their faculty of conscience has been suppressed. You however did not explain why such suppression should lead to rape.[/b]

I have already provided you with the reason why I think rape happens without going into detail and if you know then why don't you tell us. You were asked once, this is now the second time.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its a loaded question. I don't think the example in the OP involves scientific dogma.

fine i do think it not only contains scientific dogma, that dogma has resulted in the ludicrous assertion that rape is natural.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes its dangerous because as soon as you make the claim that something is 'natural' it can open the door for all kinds of attempts at justification, that is why its dangerous, now the article attempts to state that just because something is natural does not mean that its right but even a tenuous link can be manipulated and utilised as a justification ...[text shortened]... ustify his atrocities on children in the field of genetics stating that society would thank him!

Arguments can be made, but the question is 'are they justified'?

Lets get this bit settled as well, this theory has been put forward by two scientists only and most scientists disagree with them.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am glad you mention it for here we have an apparently rational study, which looking through the prism of the evolutionary hypothesis and scientific dogma concludes that rape is 'natural', wow, even if we juxtapose the Biblical laws incumbent upon the ancient Israelites while ignoring your sensationalistic journalism of 'near approval for rape', I don't think the Bible would ever make the claim that rape is 'natural'.

What is your understanding of the word 'natural' in this context? From a scientific perspective, 'natural' implies 'something that happens in nature', or 'something that happens with less than rare frequency'. I think it is impossible to deny that rape happens amongst humans frequently.
I think your objection is due to your own incorrect presumption that being 'natural' has some bearing on moral correctness.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I believe its the utmost folly to equate human behaviour with animal behaviour and that scientific dogma results in ludicrous assertions. Will you now join me in publicly denouncing scientific dogma!

If it's science it's not dogma. If it's dogma it's not science. I join you in denouncing dogma of all kinds, to join me urge you to join me in this.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What is your understanding of the word 'natural' in this context? From a scientific perspective, 'natural' implies 'something that happens in nature', or 'something that happens with less than rare frequency'. I think it is impossible to deny that rape happens amongst humans frequently.
I think your objection is due to your own incorrect presumption that being 'natural' has some bearing on moral correctness.

no its doesn't, can you understand what you read? did you actually read the article? the article itself states that because something is natural does not necessitate that its right, will you read the citations prior to commenting its rather tedious if you have not.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Arguments can be made, but the question is 'are they justified'?

Lets get this bit settled as well, this theory has been put forward by two scientists only and most scientists disagree with them.

some disagree, it remains to be seen if all disagree!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no its doesn't, can you understand what you read? did you actually read the article? the article itself states that because something is natural does not necessitate that its right, will you read the citations prior to commenting its rather tedious if you have not.

So answer the questions.