Candid Webcam

« December 2007 »
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
1
2
8
9
12
13
15
16
22
23
28
29
30

Memo to "scordova": COME OUT FROM BEHIND THE FERN.

This has to be a gag. A joke. An elaborate trollerization attempt aimed squarely at yours truly. There's no other possible explanation for the existence of the Grand Unified Theory of Dumb, a concept that unites the two most popular concepts ever to appear on this site in its four-year history: creationism and horse-fucking.

Yet there it is, a moronic convergence, sitting there on the Young Cosmos creationist blog: a post blaming Darwinism for Kenneth "fucked to death by a horse" Pinyan. ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!

You see, once upon a time, an ill-advised Darwinist did not practice safe sex, but rather unsafe sex — with a horse!!!! Unfortunately for him, he died a few hours after copulating with a horse, not too far from the Discovery Institute’s headquarters. One of the top Darwinists in the world, Dr. Peter Singer, advocates human-animal sex. But there are consequences to such physiologically ill-advised behaviors as empirically demonstrated by this poor chap’s demise….."

Oh, no, fucker. You don't get to pin this one on us. Pinyan's death did not arise out of a superior understanding of biology, but rather an insufficient understanding of physics. Specifically, the principle that two objects cannot occupy the same physical space. It's merely coincidence that the two objects in this particular instance were a gigantic horse cock and Pinyan's dumper.

Also, other than how he died, we know nothing about Kenneth Pinyan. For most purposes, we know enough, but I must assume that "scordova" came to his or her conclusion that Pinyan was a Darwinist by taking his recreational life choices and working backwards. Because no God-fearing creationist would ever die during a, shall we say, non-traditional sexual act. Nope. Never happened. It's like all the fuckers blaming the Colorado church shootings on various anti-Christian elements, only to have it end up being perpetrated by the most anti-Christian element of all, a kid who spent his whole life growing up in the "ideal" repressive God-fearing household.

Also, you will not be surprised to learn that Peter Singer does not actually advocate human-animal sex. Nor, based on the fact that I'd never heard of him before and had to look his Australian ass up, is he one of the top Darwinists in the world. What he -is- is a philosopher. A professional, academic philosopher. Which means it's his job to think and write about topics in a lengthy and nuanced manner, and also write about the lengthy, nuanced things OTHER professional philosophers have thought and written about.

Since that last sentence contains at least half a dozen words that creationists eschew as a matter of principle, it's no wonder they've boiled down Singer's evaluation of what other philosophers have said on the topic of fucking animals to, basically, "he thinks we should all get fucked in the ass by horses". To the extent that I'm willing to look into it*, the fundies are aghast that Singer objects to bestiality on practical grounds - that it's frequently abusive and nonconsensual - rather on some larger, God-delivered moral principle that humans are separate from the rest of the animal kingdom and thus should not stick their dicks into anything but their married partner's vagina on those occasions they wish to produce offspring.

I know. Creationists getting things wrong. Quelle surprise. But what I love about it is just how matter-of-fact they are about it, Of course Darwinists support bestiality! It's as if I said that supporters of the flat tax are also in favor of eating poor babies. Only without the comedic hyperbole for which I'm world-renowned. I mean, it's clear that there are flat-tax supporters who don't eat poor babies, and in any event, any correlation would still not imply causation.

Even the commenter who warns against tarring all non-creationists with the zoophilia brush makes sure to mention that "Although, I fully recognize that Singer and other Darwinists find human-animal sexual relations morally acceptable (and I’ve had a conversation with a Darwin supporter who actually ended up posting about her acceptance of this type of behavior)..." Gee, thanks, nitwit. I feel so much better now that you've scaled back the link between evolution and animal-fucking to "anecdotal and tenuous".

Maybe they're just confused. I mean, obviously, they're confused, but I mean in a specific way related to the joke I'm about to tell. Maybe they think the Darwin Awards are actual awards given out for excellence in Darwinism, and thus, when people talked about Pinyan as deserving of such an award, they figured that the evolutionary science community was actually bestowing their highest honor on him for his brave, albeit fatal, exploration of interspecies romance. Which is a hilariously stupid mistake, but would actually be a startling display of deductive reasoning from someone who thinks the universe is 6,000 years old.

*Which is, for the record, the bits of his Wikipedia entry that have citations - I'm not going primary-source-hunting on bestiality when I have a cold.