Quote: › Before I respond to this, who is "they"? The author of the article or Thornhill and Palmer?

Thornhill and Palmer.

Quote: › Not because it is absolutely immoral? Give me just one example of rape in the natural world that is used to continue the race of the rapist.

Immoral is a label we humans provide to the act after the fact. The potential consequences outlined in the article you provided could easily be detrimental to group survival, and humans being a group animal have to have a means to suppress the baser urges. Morality and ethics are the result.

Quote: › No. Thornhill and Palmer have zero valid points. They are using their evolutionary bias to justify the fact that evolution relegates man to an animal and therefore there is no authority to be held accountable to.

You have missed their point, just as the oversimplifying author of the article you linked did.

Their point is not that humans have no authority to be held accountable to. Their point is quite simply that there is indeed a sexual, biological, perhaps even evolutionary reason for rape. This fact does not justify rape in any way, shape, or form. Their intent is not that. Their intent is to highlight the fallacy of oversimplifying rape to being solely a crime of violence, which I have personally noted to be a relatively predominantly held fallacy.

I'll be blunt here. Rape is not solely about control and dominance through violence or the threat thereof. It is also to a very large degree about sex, and there is an easy tie between sex and biology and evolution, so it isn't a far jump that Thornhill and Palmer are making.

Quote: › What do you think Palmer would do if his daughter or wife or mother was raped? "Oh well, the guy must not have had any children, so it is OK."

What he would do is irrelevant to his points in this matter. Straw men and appeals to emotion do not good arguments make.

Quote: › And don't accuse me of oversimplifying it. You don't need a degree is neurosurgery to know when someone is nuts and their theories are bull.

Not only are you oversimplifying the matter, you are also missing the point behind Thornhill and Palmer's work. Grossly on both of those. Reread the paragraphs above to see why.

Quote: › And the author of the article is an evolutionist. However, she doesn't think that it is possible that rape is an authentic evolutionary tactic used to spread the fittest genes in the bunch.

I never made any assumptions about the author's background or beliefs. I find them to be irrelevant.

Her arguments, much like yours, appear full of righteous indignation at the suggestion Thornhill and Palmer have laid forth.

Perhaps they oversimplified their case. I do not know as I have not read their articles on the issue.

But oversimplification and righteous indignation at the idea does not change it. There can be some evolutionary advantages, just as there can be some evolutionary disadvantages. We cannot write them off whole-cloth because of some potential disadvantages and moral indignation.

Quote: › And... how fit is a gene that rapes?

Another straw man born of moral indignation blinding you to their points.

Just read an actual article by Thornhill and Palmer on this subject. A very good piece devoid of the reactionary remarks and oversimpifications presented by you and their critic. It is blunt and directly to the point, but it is well-balanced and well-argued.

http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Women/rape.htm

Nator,

Quote: › Thornhill and Palmer.

They are correct as far as your beliefs are concerned.

Quote: › Immoral is a label we humans provide to the act after the fact.

Where did the determination come from that it is immoral?

Quote: › What he would do is irrelevant to his points in this matter. Straw men and appeals to emotion do not good arguments make.

It is very relevant. You cannot say that rape is an evolutionary by-product and then disregard the human emotion. You are picking and choosing actions to suit your assumptions about evolution.

Are humans animals devoid of emotion?

Where do emotions come from?

How can your beliefs reconcile the fact that there is much damage done by rape? How can that help the woman cope with this damage? What consolation does she have? What do you do with the damage done by this action?

Quote: › you are also missing the point behind Thornhill and Palmer's work.

The point of their work is to discount the existence of a Moral Being by stating that morality is based upon a democratic decision made by the human animal group.

Quote: › Her arguments, much like yours, appear full of righteous indignation at the suggestion Thornhill and Palmer have laid forth.

Good. They were intended to be full of righteous indignation. At least on my part.

Quote: › There can be some evolutionary advantages, just as there can be some evolutionary disadvantages.

If a man rapes a woman and she becomes pregnant and aborts or loses the baby, what gain has been made? And in this society those are easier to do than ever before.

Quote: › Another straw man born of moral indignation blinding you to their points.

Your agreement with these assumptions are baffling to me. What world could rape ever be considered an excused action based upon the origin of a species?

That, sir, is simply called insanity.

Note this: I do understand that rape is not excused by Thornhill and Palmer. I have read the article they produced.

I don't know how someone could justify the article with a desire to educate the masses on the supposed underlying causes of rape.

Quote: › Where did the determination come from that it is immoral?

From humans.

Quote: › It is very relevant. You cannot say that rape is an evolutionary by-product and then disregard the human emotion. You are picking and choosing actions to suit your assumptions about evolution. Are humans animals devoid of emotion? Where do emotions come from? How can your beliefs reconcile the fact that there is much damage done by rape? How can that help the woman cope with this damage? What consolation does she have? What do you do with the damage done by this action?

No. Those are irrelevant questions to the issue of the origins of rape and determining why men rape.

Question 1 is irrelevant because human emotional response to rape has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of rape or why it happens.

Question 2 is way off topic, and there are some pretty good arguments for the evolution of emotion.

Question 3 is irrelevant because my beliefs already acknowledge that there is damage done by rape, regardless of its origination.

Questions 4, 5, and 6 are all irrelevant because they deal with post rape coping, not the origin of rape.

Quote: › The point of their work is to discount the existence of a Moral Being by stating that morality is based upon a democratic decision made by the human animal group.

How would you know? Have you even read their work? I posted it in the reply just before your current post. If you read their own words instead of those of their critics, you cannot reach this conclusion.

Quote: › Good. They were intended to be full of righteous indignation. At least on my part

And you have missed the point. You are angered by their bluntness and some of their ideas. But from what I can tell, you haven't even read their own words, just those of a critic.

Quote: › If a man rapes a woman and she becomes pregnant and aborts or loses the baby, what gain has been made? And in this society those are easier to do than ever before.

You are coming at the issue from the wrong angle. This statement shows you are looking at the issue from a more modern lens. Looking at the issue without that lens, which means extremely limited options for birth control/abortion and very limited medical knowledge, you can see the procreational possibility of rape.

Quote: › Your agreement with these assumptions are baffling to me. What world could rape ever be considered an excused action based upon the origin of a species? That, sir, is simply called insanity.

Again you miss the point. The point is not to excuse rape. It is merely to point out a very strong argument for its origin.

They are never excusing it. In fact, part of what they are trying to do is to better understand it as a means to curbing it.

To miss that and get that their work is somehow excusing rape is just stupidity.

Quote: › Note this: I do understand that rape is not excused by Thornhill and Palmer. I have read the article they produced.

Well, it sure appears to me that either you did not actually read it, or that you completely and totally missed their points.

Quote: › I don't know how someone could justify the article with a desire to educate the masses on the supposed underlying causes of rape.

Education is the best means for social change. If you want to curb rape, the best means to do so is to first fully understand the underlying causes for rape, including its origins. Once those are understood, then educating people about those causes and how they affect people makes them consciously aware of what is and is potentially happening, thereby leading to more caution on the part of both men and women, which should reduce the rate of rape.

I don't understand the moral indignation and complete misunderstanding of their arguments to the point that you cannot even begin to see the good this work could do.

Nator,

Quote: › How would you know? Have you even read their work? I posted it in the reply just before your current post. If you read their own words instead of those of their critics, you cannot reach this conclusion.

based upon a democratic decision made by the human animal group.

I did read your linked article. I also read an interview of Palmer. He used this to discredit the relevance of a Moral Being. He said that almost verbatim.

Quote: › I don't understand the moral indignation and complete misunderstanding of their arguments to the point that you cannot even begin to see the good this work could do.

Because it all boils down to this. We are nothing more than animals. And therefore, everything that is done by a human can be looked upon and judged according to that view. So then, there is zero rght and wrong.

And when will the justice system recognize this? Soon perhaps. Gay marriage is legal. Abortion is legal.

There are many laws that are protecting th ability to wantonly destroy human life. This will just be another one.

Quote: › based upon a democratic decision made by the human animal group. I did read your linked article. I also read an interview of Palmer. He used this to discredit the relevance of a Moral Being. He said that almost verbatim.

I discredit the relevance of a Moral Being as well.

However, I do not find this to be an extremely relevant or even good topic for that.

Quote: › Because it all boils down to this. We are nothing more than animals. And therefore, everything that is done by a human can be looked upon and judged according to that view. So then, there is zero rght and wrong.

Because right and wrong are human constructs does not negate their existence or importance.

This sort of argument appears to be a misinterpretation of the ideas. Right and wrong are not negated simply because they are human constructs. And they are not negated because there is no Moral Being.

Quote: › And when will the justice system recognize this? Soon perhaps. Gay marriage is legal. Abortion is legal. There are many laws that are protecting th ability to wantonly destroy human life. This will just be another one.

What does allowing gay marriage hurt? It hasn't caused any harm or stress in my marriage, just as I'll wager it hasn't done any harm in your marriage. In fact, it doesn't even harm your beliefs. It does go against them, but America being a society based on secular law means that we cannot dictate laws based solely on the political or religious beliefs of any. Laws in our society have to pass a secular test.

I'm not even going to get into abortion here. There are too many heated arguments and debates on that issue already. Besides, I have already provided my point of view on that one more times than I care to count.

How do you reach the conclusion that this will be another law protecting the ability to wantonly destroy human life. The ideas presented by Thornhill and Palmer aim at curbing the incidence of rape.