or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Comixology, not Apple, responsible for comic book's censorship [updated]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Comixology, not Apple, responsible for comic book's censorship [updated] - Page 3

post #81 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Really? If one, then allow them 'all'?

It's fair that I generalized too much. But I think you know what I mean.

post #82 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

 

You don't need a master's degree either to do brain surgery, btw.

 

Of course not!

But unlike brain scientists, brain surgeons are up front about it—they all admit that they're "practicing."

post #83 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

What a horribly immoral point of view! 

 

Interesting statement here. According to who's morals? You appear to be asserting a moral absolute. From whence does this moral absolute derive?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I bet you idolise Ayn Rand as well.  1smile.gif

 

1rolleyes.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Censorship of any kind is pretty much always wrong and usually damaging.  IMO the only reason to support censorship, is if the thing being censored is actually causing some kind of actual harm to someone somewhere.  Unfortunately, almost everything ever censored in the history of civilisation fails to pass this simple test.  

 

The vast majority of things that are censored, are censored for religious reasons.  Since religion is intangible, completely illogical, and based in a sort of "magical thinking" that human society can really do without, (and in fact causes far more harm than good) ... perhaps we should censor Religion instead?     1smile.gif

 

Thanks so kindly for sharing your strongly held opinions (while trying to pass some of it off as fact.)

 

The point is, whether or not censorship is "pretty much always wrong and usually damaging" (in your opinion), the (perfectly valid) point that jazzguru is making here is that private individuals companies have the right to make the rules for what goes on in the boundaries of their private property. Now this right is rarely respected and often infringed. But it can lead to things that, I suspect, you would actually support and applaud (perhaps even call for) such as a company banning people from talking about religion in their stores, factories or offices.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #84 of 146

Which one is Stelligent?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

post #85 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

 

Of course not!

But unlike scientists, brain surgeons are up front about it—they all admit that they're "practicing."

Really? They all admit this?

 

Scientists do not practice (per se); they experiment. And they are pretty upfront about that. So I don't get your point.

post #86 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

Which one is Stelligent?

 

That would be the rocket scientist. No shit.

post #87 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

There are no greater censorship fans than those on the left, which includes many gay people.

 

Bullshit. If they're for censorship, then they aren't left.

 

First of all, a private company not selling something is not censorship.

 

Second of all, just because you found a few idiot commenters on the Internet who happen to be on the "left" doesn't equate to the majority of the left that don't bother wasting their time arguing on the Internet.

 

And finally, people can take a liberal stance on one issue and a conservative stance on another. You'll be much happier if you stop trying to pigeon-hole people into left and right.

post #88 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

That would be the rocket scientist. No shit.

That's great!  . . . 

 

 

. . .  But it's not exactly brain surgery!  (which apparently you've had—humorectomy!)

post #89 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

That's great!  . . . 

 

 

. . .  But it's not exactly brain surgery!  (which apparently you've had—humorectomy!)

Or, apparently, there hasn't been any humor posted yet.

post #90 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Or, apparently, there hasn't been any humor posted yet.

I think that Mitchell & Webb skit is quite humorous.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #91 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I think that Mitchell & Webb skit is quite humorous.

It's aight. But I was referring to the comments.

post #92 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

It's aight. But I was referring to the comments.

If you find that skit just "aight" I have to side with DESuserIGN on the humorectomy.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #93 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Or, apparently, there hasn't been any humor posted yet.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
I think that Mitchell & Webb skit is quite humorous.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

It's aight. But I was referring to the comments.

 

 

Oh come on. You posted the funniest thing yet:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

That would be the rocket scientist. No shit.

 

And Solipy's right, the Mitchell and Webb skit was funny.

But it being posted first made your later post truly hilarious.

post #94 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


If you find that skit just "aight" I have to side with DESuserIGN on the humorectomy.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

But it being posted first made your later post truly hilarious.


Any surprise that we all think what we post/introduce is funny? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that.

post #95 of 146
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see this thread has spun off in a tangent.
post #96 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see this thread has spun off in a tangent.

Which is the normal course on this site. At the end of the day, Apple and iPhone are incidental. Everyone is simply looking for a place to puff out their chest, slam others, choose (randomly) one side as fraternity and the other as target.

post #97 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see this thread has spun off in a tangent.

Clearly Steligent, the rocket scientist, can't see this though!

post #98 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdowntown View Post


Please leave Dr. King out your Gay Rights agenda. His struggles at the time was for equality for his race. Last I checked the history of his marches didn't include gay pride. By the way check the spelling of his name next time you speak for him.

 

Yeah, I noticed the misspelling but unfortunately can't edit posts at work.

 

I was simply drawing a comparison between his speaking out against a major injustice of his time, but i can see how that was difficult to see.  And for me, its not a gay rights agenda, its an equality issue(which I believe Dr. King had a few thoughts on).  

post #99 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baka-Dubbs View Post

 

Yeah, I noticed the misspelling but unfortunately can't edit posts at work.

 

I was simply drawing a comparison between his speaking out against a major injustice of his time, but i can see how that was difficult to see.  And for me, its not a gay rights agenda, its an equality issue(which I believe Dr. King had a few thoughts on).  


Gay rights are not about equality?

post #100 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

What a horribly immoral point of view!  

 

I bet you idolise Ayn Rand as well.  1smile.gif

 

I do not idolize any mortal person or object. Therefore, I am probably considered a threat to the State. 1wink.gif

 

Quote:

Censorship of any kind is pretty much always wrong and usually damaging.  IMO the only reason to support censorship, is if the thing being censored is actually causing some kind of actual harm to someone somewhere.  Unfortunately, almost everything ever censored in the history of civilisation fails to pass this simple test.  

 

The vast majority of things that are censored, are censored for religious reasons.  Since religion is intangible, completely illogical, and based in a sort of "magical thinking" that human society can really do without, (and in fact causes far more harm than good) ... perhaps we should censor Religion instead?     1smile.gif

 

I like how you declared censorship of any kind to be wrong and damaging...then call for censorship of religion. Tongue-in-cheek, of course (at least I hope it was). 1smile.gif

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #101 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satorical View Post

It's really weird that there are censorship fans.

Yeah, Apple has no right to call the shots on their app store. /s

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #102 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

Gay rights are not about equality?

What are they about if not trying to get human rights that equal others?

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #103 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Huh?

It's still there, and updated too.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/9/4206342/apple-bans-brian-k-vaughan-saga-from-comixology-over-sexual-content

 

Yeah, I eventually found it but my point still stands. The original was in one of those massive headline boxes spanning a quarter of the page on their homepage for a day. The article wasn't a paragraph, but a 600 word opinion piece using the supposed banning of the content as a premise for the entire piece, which pretty much bashes Apple and accuses them of severe hypocrisy, which was followed up by a couple hundred commentators with torches and vehement anti-Apple rhetoric.  The updated version should have been prominently displayed in the same spot, making clear the original article was completely false. Instead, it's nowhere to be found on the homepage, and when found the headline doesn't even imply that the original story was false. You have to open the article, scroll till the very end, and read the paragraph to find out what the vague "update" was about. This is shameful, considering the original was basically on opinion piece based on a false premise, and the update which makes this premise obsolete is hidden away and requires a search. 

 

The point is that 95% of the people who read the original will continue believing it's true, as the new "updated" version is not easily discoverable and they will never see it. In my opinion journalistic integrity dictates that if you write something that turns out to be false, something which you continue to tweet about to bash the company (check topolsky's twitter) and then encourage comments- you should put the correction front and center, if you care about honesty to your readers. TheVerge did the minimal possible in this regard, just enough to cover their ass but nothing that shows they have an interest in being accountable or conveying accurate info to their readers. They know full well the new version will not be seen by most. 

post #104 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Yeah, I eventually found it but my point still stands. The original was in one of those massive headline boxes spanning a quarter of the page on their homepage for a day. The article wasn't a paragraph, but a 600 word opinion piece using the supposed banning of the content as a premise for the entire piece, which pretty much bashes Apple and accuses them of severe hypocrisy, which was followed up by a couple hundred commentators with torches and vehement anti-Apple rhetoric.  The updated version should have been prominently displayed in the same spot, making clear the original article was completely false. Instead, it's nowhere to be found on the homepage, and when found the headline doesn't even imply that the original story was false. You have to open the article, scroll till the very end, and read the paragraph to find out what the vague "update" was about. This is shameful, considering the original was basically on opinion piece based on a false premise, and the update which makes this premise obsolete is hidden away and requires a search. 

 

The point is that 95% of the people who read the original will continue believing it's true, as the new "updated" version is not easily discoverable and they will never see it.

 

That's how propaganda is supposed to work. Clever huh?
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

In my opinion journalistic integrity... 

 

Isn't that one of those things like "military intelligence" or "controlled chaos?"

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #105 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

Gay rights are not about equality?

 

I believe that in the future, people will have the option of choosing if their children are to be gay or not, as it's all about programming and how the brain is wired IMO. When science advances sufficiently, I believe that many biological imperfections currently found will be a thing of the past. 

 

I don't believe that gay people should be discriminated against, but I don't believe that they should be celebrated either. If somebody is born near sighted, they don't go around holding parades just because they got dealt a bad genetic card. Nobody is perfect and everybody has their biological flaws. I think that it's silly to go around and to celebrate and flaunt those flaws. It sounds like a very unscientific attitude to adopt. 

post #106 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


Gay rights are not about equality?
Fair enough...but Equal Rights of Minorities is being hi-jacked by Jay Pride. Nobody is spelling out about this injustice.
post #107 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

What are they about if not trying to get human rights that equal others?

Umm, that's my kind of my pt?!
post #108 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdowntown View Post

Fair enough...but Equal Rights of Minorities is being hi-jacked by Jay Pride. Nobody is spelling out about this injustice.
Hijack? Pls explain.

Gays are not a minority group deserving of equal rights too?
post #109 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

Umm, that's my kind of my pt?!

Ah, I missed your question mark. My bad.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #110 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I believe that in the future, people will have the option of choosing if their children are to be gay or not, as it's all about programming and how the brain is wired IMO. When science advances sufficiently, I believe that many biological imperfections currently found will be a thing of the past. 

I don't believe that gay people should be discriminated against, but I don't believe that they should be celebrated either. If somebody is born near sighted, they don't go around holding parades just because they got dealt a bad genetic card. Nobody is perfect and everybody has their biological flaws. I think that it's silly to go around and to celebrate and flaunt those flaws. It sounds like a very unscientific attitude to adopt. 

Gays have been dealt a bad genetic card? What's their biological flaw?
post #111 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Ah, I missed your question mark. My bad.

Np
post #112 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


Gays have been dealt a bad genetic card? What's their biological flaw?

That somebody is wired to be attracted to the same sex. In the simplest terms, species are supposed to reproduce, otherwise they would die out. And human reproduction obviously requires one of each sex.

 

If you were the supreme master of the universe, and it was your job to create a new species that is supposed to thrive and survive, would you deliberately make some of that species gay? That doesn't make any sense to me, as you would want as much odds as you can to be in your favor.

 

My intent is not really to offend or anything like that here, but I do view being gay as being a biological flaw, even though it can be considered a relatively minor flaw, compared to other flaws which people have, such as certain diseases and conditions.

 

And as I stated earlier, I believe that everybody has biological flaws, nobody is perfect.

post #113 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

That somebody is wired to be attracted to the same sex. In the simplest terms, species are supposed to reproduce, otherwise they would die out. And human reproduction obviously requires one of each sex.

If you were the supreme master of the universe, and it was your job to create a new species that is supposed to thrive and survive, would you deliberately make some of that species gay? That doesn't make any sense to me, as you would want as much odds as you can to be in your favor.

My intent is not really to offend or anything like that here, but I do view being gay as being a biological flaw, even though it can be considered a relatively minor flaw, compared to other flaws which people have, such as certain diseases and conditions.

And as I stated earlier, I believe that everybody has biological flaws, nobody is perfect.

Somebody call the police, a bleeding heart liberal hijacked Apple ]['s account. Jokes aside that was a well written post and for once I agree with you.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #114 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satorical View Post

It's really weird that there are censorship fans.

 

"Censorship fans"? Really? Some of us are fans of common sense, and realize that there is censorship in every single aspect of life, every industry, every society, and the only question is the extent and boundaries of that "censorship". If I think that hardcore sex shouldn't be shown on daytime TV, does that make me a censorship fan? Or that people shouldn't be allowed to waltz around naked? You an argue the boundaries of censorship until you're blue in the face, because every single individual on this planet has a different set of values that determines what is and what isn't appropriate/morally acceptable in any given situation, but don't be childish and pretend that anyone that aknowledges that censorship needs to exist at some reasonable level is a "censorship fan". 

post #115 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

If you were the supreme master of the universe, and it was your job to create a new species that is supposed to thrive and survive, would you deliberately make some of that species gay? That doesn't make any sense to me, as you would want as much odds as you can to be in your favor.

Why would you deliberately allow for the population to get so unwieldy that complete societies crumble due to a lack of resources? For all we know there are checks and balances built into the DNA code to help mitigate population growth to allow the societal unit to be healthier overall. You can say that homosexuality isn't the norm, but you can't say it's not natural as there is no evidence to suggest it's a flaw.

You're no better than anyone else that has disparaged other people by claiming they are flawed design or bad code, typically because they aren't rich and white. Carl Linnaeus, who invented our modern taxonomy classification system had many great scientific break throughs, but he also allowed his dogma make claims that simply aren't true.

He felt God's design for the human skull was perfectly spherical which Caucasian Europeans (of course¡) having the most spherical skulls and negroids* having the least spherical, thus he felt that through evolution man was made worse but with "whites" being the most pure "race." Can you guess where he found the most round skull? The Caucus mountains.

There is no evidence that he was outwardly racist toward any other "race" but he was in fact allowing preconcieved notions about society make false assumptions about humanity. Much of this particular scientific work has been the foundation for certain hate groups that use it as doctrine.

Finally, you remember that scene in Jurassic Park where they talk about splicing in frog DNA to fill the gaps but also mention that some species of frog have been known to change sex to fill a need in a lacking population? Humans are far too complex to do this after birth but perhaps there are other things to alter the population.

There is certainly a mountain of evidence that humans do this from a societal standpoint and have for as long as we have recorded societies. For example, there is polygamy and polyandry. The first one is considered abhorrent by most and latter one isn't known by most. Each has their place in certain societies, and each comes with a double-standard in a typical Western society.
Quote:
My intent is not really to offend or anything like that here, but I do view being gay as being a biological flaw, even though it can be considered a relatively minor flaw, compared to other flaws which people have, such as certain diseases and conditions.

Being abnormal doesn't mean it's a flaw. Left-handedness is not normal but it's been a long time since we considered it evil. Some readers here may remember when schools would force students to be right handed.

Etymology time: In Latin the terms dexter and sinister are opposites of each other. They mean 'right' and 'left', respectively. So we get the word sinister meaning evil from left and the word dexterity (and all its variations) from the word right.

PS: I have a feeling Dexter Morgan, the serial killer who kills other serial killers, was aptly named for being the opposite of sinister.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #116 of 146

English is not your enemy. It can be a very precise language. Try again.

post #117 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Why would you deliberately allow for the population to get so unwieldy that complete societies crumble due to a lack of resources? For all we know there are checks and balances built into the DNA code to help mitigate population growth to allow the societal unit to be healthier overall. You can say that homosexuality isn't the norm, but you can't say it's not natural as there is no evidence to suggest it's a flaw.

You're no better than anyone else that has disparaged other people by claiming they are flawed design or bad code, typically because they aren't rich and white. Carl Linnaeus, who invented our modern taxonomy classification system had many great scientific break throughs, but he also allowed his dogma make claims that simply aren't true.

He felt God's design for the human skull was perfectly spherical which Caucasian Europeans (of course¡) having the most spherical skulls and negroids* having the least spherical, thus he felt that through evolution man was made worse but with "whites" being the most pure "race." Can you guess where he found the most round skull? The Caucus mountains.

There is no evidence that he was outwardly racist toward any other "race" but he was in fact allowing preconcieved notions about society make false assumptions about humanity. Much of this particular scientific work has been the foundation for certain hate groups that use it as doctrine.

Finally, you remember that scene in Jurassic Park where they talk about splicing in frog DNA to fill the gaps but also mention that some species of frog have been known to change sex to fill a need in a lacking population? Humans are far too complex to do this after birth but perhaps there are other things to alter the population.

There is certainly a mountain of evidence that humans do this from a societal standpoint and have for as long as we have recorded societies. For example, there is polygamy and polyandry. The first one is considered abhorrent by most and latter one isn't known by most. Each has their place in certain societies, and each comes with a double-standard in a typical Western society.
Being abnormal doesn't mean it's a flaw. Left-handedness is not normal but it's been a long time since we considered it evil. Some readers here may remember when schools would force students to be right handed.

Etymology time: In Latin the terms dexter and sinister are opposites of each other. They mean 'right' and 'left', respectively. So we get the word sinister meaning evil from left and the word dexterity (and all its variations) from the word right.

PS: I have a feeling Dexter Morgan, the serial killer who kills other serial killers, was aptly named for being the opposite of sinister.

I found the most spherical skull on the NFL Network and it belongs to Marshall Faulk, a 'negroid', so there goes that theory lol
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #118 of 146

The First Amendment was written to protect against attitudes like yours. ::goes to renew ACLU membership::

 

Oh yeah, this is an Apple blog: Glad it wasn't Apple. Boo, Comixology.

post #119 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Being abnormal doesn't mean it's a flaw. Left-handedness is not normal but it's been a long time since we considered it evil. Some readers here may remember when schools would force students to be right handed.
 

 

Well put.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Being abnormal doesn't mean it's a flaw. Left-handedness is not normal but it's been a long time since we considered it evil. Some readers here may remember when schools would force students to be right handed.

Etymology time: In Latin the terms dexter and sinister are opposites of each other. They mean 'right' and 'left', respectively. So we get the word sinister meaning evil from left and the word dexterity (and all its variations) from the word right.

PS: I have a feeling Dexter Morgan, the serial killer who kills other serial killers, was aptly named for being the opposite of sinister.
 
Again, well put, although I'd substitute "normal" with "normative". Very interesting trivia about Dexter M's first name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

If you were the supreme master of the universe, and it was your job to create a new species that is supposed to thrive and survive, would you deliberately make some of that species gay? That doesn't make any sense to me, as you would want as much odds as you can to be in your favor.
 
There is a difference between what is needed for a species to thrive vs. what is needed for an individual to thrive. If sexual reproduction between a male and female is the only way a species can reproduce, then it would be a disadvantage for the entire species to be gay. But having a minority population being gay does not affect the species' ability to reproduce and thrive as a whole. In fact, individual diversity is key to how species thrive. As individuals, gays are not at a disadvantage so long as society does not create artificial constraints. After all, we would not think of someone as biologically flawed if they choose not to start a family or choose to adopt rather than conceive, would we?
 
Furthermore, evolution tends to eliminate disadvantageous phenotypes over time - i.e. flaws tend not to be naturally selected. The fact that gays represent a significant minority in every society suggests that this sexual orientation is amongst those that have been naturally selected and not a flaw to be suppressed by the invisible hand of evolution.
 
Anyhow, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
post #120 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I found the most spherical skull on the NFL Network and it belongs to Marshall Faulk, a 'negroid', so there goes that theory lol

1) Just to be clear, the term negroid is an acceptable and non-racial term in anthropology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid

2) According to Ricky Gervais, Karl Pilkington has a perfectly round head. I wouldn't call Karl any evolutionary holotype.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Very interesting trivia about Dexter M's first name.

I wouldn't necessarily classify it as trivia as it's just me drawing comparisons. I'd say it's more of an observation. There are many coincidences in etymology. It may have happened without any conscious thought by Jeff Lindsay.
Quote:
Furthermore, evolution tends to eliminate disadvantageous phenotypes over time - i.e. flaws tend not to be naturally selected. The fact that gays represent a significant minority in every society suggests that this sexual orientation is amongst those that have been naturally selected and not a flaw to be suppressed by the invisible hand of evolution.

Excellent point!

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Comixology, not Apple, responsible for comic book's censorship [updated]