Noyau (2)

…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation

Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.

[to work around page bug]

2,706 thoughts on “Noyau (2)

  1. newton: eliminating abortion would increase the number of children who needed to be adopted. Creating a population which would include a larger percentage of children who suffered from more complex health issues. Coupled with a effort by conservatives to eliminate the health safety net, this would make find adoptive parents willing to accept the financial requirement even more difficult.

    Good stuff, I think.

    But consider: from a “rights perspective” none of that matters. It’s the woman’s right or it isn’t. It’s the fetus’s right, or it’s not.

  2. walto: Thanks, dazz. What is it about those goals that makes you now think that it would have been good to have them earlier?More specifically, I mean, What about your life would have been better if you’d fulfilled those, rather than some other goals you now don’t care so much about?

    Some of those things might have changed my life dramatically, who knows if for the best or not. I guess it’s all a matter of expectations but also about moral accountability: some of those things I would still change them even if they costed me

  3. Mung,
    Given that you have my position backwards, I am relieved that you find my logic horrendous. I suggest you read what I wrote.

    And of course it doesn’t “follow” from what I wrote that there are not enough people who are willing to adopt. That’s a well-known and entirely uncontroversial fact.
    With that one famous exception.

  4. Mung: Leaving aside the fairness of the question, it’s a pointless question. A red herring. Because nothing follows from it either way.

    So was FMM’s, sometimes one herring deserves another.

  5. dazz: But what makes one goal better than another goal?

    This would be so much easier if we were talking about football

    But think about it. If there are no such things as natural rights, in order to tell whether abortion is allowable or not (or who gets to decide this or whatever), we have to know what’s valuable. Is it the mother’s preferences? The fetus’s likely future life as a human being? Some optimal societal result? If we don’t have any position on that stuff, we really have no idea what the basis is for our answer.

    Positing “rights” makes it easy. Without them, I don’t see that there’s any way to avoid doing some value theory (which, yeah, is hard).

  6. walto: But think about it. If there are no such things as natural rights, in order to tell whether abortion is allowable or not (or who gets to decide this or whatever),we have to know what’s valuable. Is it the mother’s preferences? The fetus’s likely future life as a human being? Some optimal societal result?If we don’t have any position on that stuff, we really have no idea what the basis is for our answer.

    Positing “rights” makes it easy. Without them, I don’t see that there’s any way to avoid doing some value theory (which, yeah, is hard).

    Ah, makes complete sense, thanks Walto.
    Seems to me even someone who believes in rights might be forced to decide which rights should take precedence (are somehow more valuable) in this case, unless they believed that unborns have no rights, but then I guess they would have no basis to criticize a woman that smokes and drinks while pregnant, for example

  7. Got an email today with the subject

    Bible Trick Vanquishes Belly Fat

    Which one of you nimrods is responsible for spamming that shit? X>{

  8. Over at UD kariosfocus justifies death as a punishment for adultery

    In short, adultery was clan treason, not just ill advised indulgence.

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-is-ought-problem-is-it-a-true-dichotomy-or-a-deceptive-bluff/#comment-661094

    But should a woman have an abortion then:

    the ongoing holocaust of living posterity in the womb on pretence of rights of a woman to kill her unborn child.

    To sum up: Killing women is OK, the men of the clan have a right to do that to protect the clan, but the woman has no right to abort an unwanted fetus.

  9. OMagain: To sum up: Killing women is OK, the men of the clan have a right to do that to protect the clan, but the woman has no right to abort an unwanted fetus.

    You’re an idiot.

  10. Mung: You’re an idiot.

    Takes one to know one. But why am I an idiot? That’s what KF said. Women can be killed for the good of the tribe. Where did I get it wrong?

  11. walto: It’s the woman’s right or it isn’t. It’s the fetus’s right, or it’s not.

    I missed this before.

    What nonsense. A fetus is dependent on the mother. A fetus has no right of existence at conception, just a chance of existence. I’ll allow that once a fetus has a chance of independent existence, then the balance shifts. But I still would like anyone to denies a choice to a woman to carry or not carry a fetus to term,
    to explain how do you enforce a woman who does not want to be pregnant to continue that pregnancy under any circumstances.

    The Irish nation moved from the ridiculous “there’s a fetal heartbeat so no abortion” to a sensible 12 weeks.

    Let’s see where the US end up after Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court.

  12. Alan Fox: I missed this before.

    What nonsense. A fetus is dependent on the mother. A fetus has no right of existence at conception, just a chance of existence. I’ll allow that once a fetus has a chance of independent existence, then the balance shifts. But I still would like anyone to denies a choice to a woman to carry or not carry a fetus to term,to explain how do you enforce a woman who does not want to be pregnant to continue that pregnancy under any circumstances.

    The Irish nation moved from the ridiculous “there’s a fetal heartbeat so no abortion” to a sensible 12 weeks.

    Let’s see where the US end up after Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court.

    Do you think the Irish people punished (at least to a degree) the Catholic Church for sex abuse scandal by voting for abortion rights? You are not Irish, are you?

  13. Alan Fox: how do you enforce a woman who does not want to be pregnant to continue that pregnancy under any circumstances.

    It’s called abstinence… I think some of the retirees here might remember what that means…keiths? OMgut?

  14. J-Mac: Do you think the Irish people punished (at least to a degree) the Catholic Church for sex abuse scandal by voting for abortion rights?

    Of course. Understandably, in view of the mendacity and incompetence of the Church hierarchy.

    You are not Irish, are you?

    Not within the last few generations.

  15. Alan Fox: …how do you enforce a woman who does not want to be pregnant to continue that pregnancy under any circumstances.

    It was enforced – abortion was illegal and punishable. It worked as good or as bad as any other legal regulation.

  16. Alan Fox:
    Infanticide was the norm in Classical Greece and Rome.

    No, it was not. It was rampant, but punishable – like in India or sub-Saharan Africa today.

    Also, homosexuality was not the norm in Antique era. It was “celebrated” if you wish, but nobody demanded “equal marriage rights” on that basis.

    You need to get a grip on the concept of norm.

  17. Alan Fox: Enforced abstinence? On men? It might work!

    The society has changed… People want to sleep around but they don’t want to face the consequences…Therefore they demanded the change to suit their selfish pursuits…
    It’s the society driven by instant gratifications…

    It can’t last…IMV…

  18. J-Mac: The society has changed… People want to sleep around but they don’t want to face the consequences…Therefore they demanded the change to suit their selfish pursuits…
    It’s the society driven by instant gratifications

    Yeah! I blame the ready availability of contraceptives. We need to go back to the good old days, when slutty women always got pregnant, so we could identify them and shame them. Dammit!
    </incel mode>

  19. Erik: No, it was not. It was rampant, but punishable

    My point was that for some women, choices have widened since Classical times.

  20. J-Mac: Do you think the Irish people punished (at least to a degree) the Catholic Church for sex abuse scandal by voting for abortion rights?

    Pope John-Paul visited Ireland in 1979 and was received like a minor god. Pope Francis is visiting in August this year. I suspect his reception will be less enthusiastic and less universal. See this Guardian article

    That’s a seismic shift in a nation’s outlook on religion in less than 40 years that might be encouraging to those thinking the grip that fundamentalism has on a large proportion of Americans is not set in stone.

  21. Alan Fox: Pope John-Paul visited Ireland in 1979 and was received like a minor god. Pope Francis is visiting in August this year. I suspect his reception will be less enthusiastic and less universal. See this Guardian article

    That’s a seismic shift in a nation’s outlook on religion in less than 40 years that might be encouraging to those thinking the grip that fundamentalismhas on a large proportion of Americans is not set in stone.

    I’m not surprised…
    I’ve read somewhere that when the sex abuse scandal was exposed in Ireland in 2009 or so, the Sunday mass attendance dropped from 90% to 10 %…
    I’m not sure how it is applied, but a priest is not supposed to be one-on-one with a minor…
    I just feel sorry for priests and nuns who are not guilty but they are constant suspects… A lot of them leave the church…

  22. J-Mac: I’ve read somewhere that when the sex abuse scandal was exposed in Ireland in 2009 or so, the Sunday mass attendance dropped from 90% to 10 %…

    While religion, or more to the point, the political influence of the Catholic Church, is on the decline, figures don’t support such a drop in religious belief. Here, for instance.

    I’m not sure how it is applied, but a priest is not supposed to be one-on-one with a minor…

    and his superiors should not be covering up and exacerbating the problem by moving him on to a new parish.

    I just feel sorry for priests and nuns who are not guilty but they are constant suspects… A lot of them leave the church…

    Well, I would say that is a god thing. Good for them to have a more normal life, escaping “enforced” celibacy, good for those who will no longer encounter them in a Catholic environment.

  23. Alan Fox: While religion, or more to the point, the political influence of the Catholic Church, is on the decline, figures don’t support such a drop in religious belief. Here, for instance.

    Religion and politics often go hand in hand…but if a religion loses the support of its members, it also loses the support of the politicians and its influence…

    There are tens of thousands of churches for sale all over US and Canada, many of them for $1..

  24. Alan Fox: I just feel sorry for priests and nuns who are not guilty but they are constant suspects… A lot of them leave the church…
    Well, I would say that is a god thing. Good for them to have a more normal life, escaping “enforced” celibacy, good for those who will no longer encounter them in a Catholic environment.

    What’s more normal life???
    Barbeques and ballgames?

  25. I’m taking a poll.

    What do people think of Sascha Baron Cohen’s new show on Showtime? (Or if they can’t get that, of his previous work as Borat, Ali G, etc.)

    Do you think it’s funny?

    Do you think it’s valuable socially? (E.g., it’s knocked a racist out of Congress, apparently.)

    Any other thoughts about this you’d like to share?

  26. walto:
    I’m taking a poll.

    What do people think of Sascha Baron Cohen’s new show on Showtime? (Or if they can’t get that, of his previous work as Borat, Ali G, etc.)

    Snippets on Youtube. I recall the famous (well, in the UK at least) interview with Tony Benn (A left-wing politician). “It’s coz I’ze black, innit. Here’s Benn’s take.

    Do you think it’s funny?

    Regarding Borat some stuff was hilarious, loved the bear, some was excruciating (the masseur).

    Do you think it’s valuable socially? (E.g., it’s knocked a racist out of Congress, apparently.)

    Worth it just for that, no?

    Any other thoughts about this you’d like to share?

    Er… not off-hand. 🙂

  27. walto:
    I’m taking a poll.

    What do people think of Sascha Baron Cohen’s new show on Showtime? (Or if they can’t get that, of his previous work as Borat, Ali G, etc.)

    Do you think it’s funny?
    Do you think it’s valuable socially? (

    Watched the first episode as I was have a slack day (cf my other posts today).

    I found the Sanders interview and the kinder-guardian stuff funny. But I gave up on the other sketches (dinner, fecal art) which I found cringeworthy, not funny.

    As a ketchup-loving inhabitant of the GWN, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the social value of the show in the US. Not so much here, I suspect.

  28. Thanks to those who have responded. FWIW, I remember thinking it was kind of cringey funny when Ali G. asked Waldheim whether Disneyland was a member of the United Nations and when he asked a bunch of high-ranking clergy why so many nuns are prostitutes. But I didn’t like him taking advantage of their innocence that way. The Chomsky segment was particularly painful for me to watch. I could get through the Borat movie only by leaving the room occasionally, and I couldn’t watch the new interview with Bernie Sanders at all.

    So I guess I’m too much of a Pollyanna to really enjoy his stuff. Also, while I like that he’s recently gotten some racist Republican member of Congress to resign his office, I think his humiliation tactics are further polarizing and generally bad for society. But, obviously, others’ mileage may vary.

  29. I guess one needs to be a bit of a punk to enjoy it.

    walto: I think his humiliation tactics are further polarizing and generally bad for society. But, obviously, others’ mileage may vary.

    Do you think that’s also true of guys like George Carlin, Bill Hicks or Don Rickles? Just curious

  30. Probably not to the same extent. I mean the right hated Carlin and Bruce of course, but those guys weren’t trying to humiliate individuals in front of thousands of jeering fans. They’d say, ‘how stupid can these dipshits be?’ And their audiences would laugh, but it’s more painful to be personally made a laughingstock because of one’s gullibility, I think. And Tickles calling someone a fat hockey puck seems different. It wasn’t political, certainly.

    Interestingly, I don’t mind the show ‘Nathan for you’ so much since I saw the final episode in which Fielder makes fun of his own ingenuousness and other flaws. It’s sweet–and sad.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.