AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Ladlergo

form_srcid: Ladlergo

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.


form_srcid: Ladlergo

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Ladlergo%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2006/05/19 08:27:21, Link
Author: Ladlergo
So Thor...
How would you describe and explain bisexuality?  I'm not sure where it fits into your "aversion" description.

Date: 2006/05/19 08:41:04, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Just remember that even if you don't believe in evolution, it doesn't prevent bacteria from acquiring mutations that make them immune to antibiotics.

As for your questions, as stated above, you're confusing evolution with cosmology.  Evolution only describes what happens once life develops.  It says nothing about the origin of life, the origin of the Earth, or the origin of the universe.

Date: 2006/05/20 06:23:46, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Again, Thor, I ask:

How would you describe and explain bisexuality re: aversion and attraction?

Date: 2006/05/22 06:45:04, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (thordaddy @ May 20 2006,18:50)

I would explain bisexuality the same way I explain smoking cigarettes, taking drugs, working out or getting a different style haircut.

It's called making choices.

So... being bisexual is choosing not being squeamish about the sex of the person one's attracted to?  Otherwise I don't see where your sense of aversion re: sexuality applies to bisexuality.

Date: 2006/05/22 06:54:12, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 22 2006,08:28)
There are good reasons why people who are related shouldn't marry. If you are aware of people who are only attracted to multiple people at the same time please let me know.

Actually, there are good reasons why people who are closely related shouldn't reproduce (although it depends on what they are carriers for, of course), but there is no biological reason as for why they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Now, there is some psychological merit for preventing incest...

Date: 2006/05/23 10:45:56, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 23 2006,16:32)

The funny thing is, I really don't care what my neighbor does. And if I could get some legal guarantee (a constitutional amendment, perhaps?) that gay marriage today wouldn't lead to affirmative action tomorrow, or that I could live free from the inevitable fruit of such unions (angry, disturbed children, for example), then I might be more willing to compromise. But T-daddy and I can see where this policy will lead. Then again, we're not blinded by the incense.

  I guess we'll have to see what happens in England and Massachusetts.

All children go through a time when they're angry and disturbed.  It's called adolescence.  How are the children of gay or bisexual parents any different?  And don't pull the bullshit of needing both a father and a mother.  Psych studies say you're wrong (and if you're going to say they're flawed, say how they're flawed).

And Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the US.  Just FYI.

Date: 2006/05/23 11:20:40, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 23 2006,17:07)

Tons of studies show that fatherless households are unstable ones. I do believe I've quoted a few on this very board. Now, let's see... the majority of freshly married couples will be lesbian - many already have children, and this new right will probably encourage them to have even more. Now, lesbian couples tend to be fatherless....still with me, ladlergo? all of these children will have to find their masculine role models outside the home. Gee, I wonder which ones they'll pick? Turn on the TV for a few hints. Oh, but it's not the lack of dads, it's just the lack of two parents? Color me skeptical. Here's another source just to hear you whine.  :p

Duh.  Of course a family with one parent is going to be less stable (on average) that a family with two parents.

Now please show the studies that say that same-sex two-parent households fall under this category of single-parent homes.  I'm not seeing them.

Date: 2006/05/24 03:30:36, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (PuckSR @ May 24 2006,02:30)
I oppose gay marriage and polygamy on the grounds of practical implication....which is just about the only non-biased position that one can take in opposition to gay marriage.

Would you mind explaining this "practical implication" position?  I'm genuinely curious.

Date: 2006/05/24 03:39:09, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 24 2006,04:56)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ May 23 2006,22:42)
EDIT> Strangely enough, straight people are still getting married. Weird! Surely T-Diddly could not be wrong in his prediction?

But not as often, Stephen. The lack of a fiscal advantage may have something to do with it. Ditto on having children.

If financial benefits are the reason people are getting married and having children, I suspect that something's wrong with their idea of "marriage."

Date: 2006/05/24 03:50:36, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (skeptic @ May 24 2006,09:34)
Evolution must be occurring.  Thats as near to a fact as possible.  I just don't accept the current theory.

It would help if you demonstrated understanding of current evolutionary theory.  This is a good place to start.  You also might want to look here.
I believe it must be reactive and mechanism based.

Can you explain what you mean by "reactive" and "mechanism based"?

Date: 2006/05/24 05:58:52, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (Ved @ May 24 2006,11:53)
If Ken Ham could persuade God Himself to debate the scientists in any forum, I might think that He had a chance of beating the scientists.

That would be great.  I'd have a few questions for Him, like if He enjoys playing practical jokes on lifeforms by adding in design flaws.

Date: 2006/05/24 06:24:17, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 24 2006,12:14)
Quote (beervolcano @ May 24 2006,09:42)
Just wanted to share my personal connection that I had recently with our Creator, um, Intelligent Designer, that endowed us with inalienable rights. I will thank Him every day from now on for showing Himself to me at the store. He's now hanging out with me in my own home! I can honestly say that I feel touched.

He doesn't come right out and say he's there, but I see him in his Noodly Glory.

Notice the nod to JAD on the package.

Oooh! JAD and the FSM! That's what the marketing types call 'crossover', innit?

The 'extra sour' might also refer to Dembski.

/hangs head in shame
What is JAD?

Date: 2006/05/24 06:53:11, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 24 2006,12:43)
Quote (Ladlergo @ May 24 2006,11:24)
/hangs head in shame
What is JAD?

"John A Davison", demented intelligent design advocate, bitter old crank, and retired professsor. He has a habit of ending all his screeds with the phrase "I love it so!"

Someone else can provide you with a link to his, uh, remarkable single-thread blog.

If he's the one who doesn't realize that one can make more than one post in the same blog, I saw it mentioned in one of these threads.

Date: 2006/05/24 09:46:08, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Well, this is quite an interesting topic.  I'll have to mull it over for a while, but for now I have a few legal questions (in case anyone is familiar with the subject).  What's the history of cases involving brainwashing in the western world?  Have they ever been considered?  Have there ever been any cases concerning the brainwashing of minors?

Date: 2006/05/24 10:03:11, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 24 2006,15:54)
So, to use bring up Arden's point, I do not need to consult the Bible to figure out when to change the oil, but knowledge of when to change the oil depnds upon the Bible being true.

Holy @#$%.  You just broke my brain.

Date: 2006/05/24 11:15:31, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (incorygible @ May 24 2006,16:52)
Hacia. (2001). Genome of the apes. Trends In Genetics 17(11): 637-645.

Thanks for typing it up.

Of course, I expect Dave to say that even 1% difference is meaningless.

Date: 2006/05/24 11:22:37, Link
Author: Ladlergo
So the board regurgitated my reply.  Is there any way to delete posts?

Date: 2006/05/24 13:43:31, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (PuckSR @ May 24 2006,18:51)
Your dealing with a union that is alien to the current rules and regulations regarding marriage.

You know, divorce was something "alien" when it first existed.  So was universal suffrage.
No gay couple will ever produce offspring...(at least not together)

And a heterosexual couple that marries in their 70s will never produce offspring together.  Same for a couple that has an infertile partner.
No sexual inequality exists(the original reason for 50% laws and alimony)

That's actually not true, though it's very PC right now.  There are very real brain differences between the sexes.
Quote you keep the common-law marriage laws as is...or do you modify them?

Oh no!  People might have to rethink a flawed system!
Basically...both polygamy and homosexual marriage have intrinsic complications when compared to current marriage laws.

Those "intrinsic complications" only exist in countries where polygamy and gay marriage is outlawed and/or a social minefield.
Right now a homosexual or polygamist group can achieve almost all of the same rights and protection as "legal" marriage without actually getting married....

You actually don't know, do you?  People who are legally married get the following:
Social security, medicare, disability, and military benefits of the spouses.
The right to make medical decisions for the spouse, should he or she become incapacitated.
The right to visit the spouse in the hospital during non-visiting hours.
The right of joint adoption.
The right to arrange a burial for the spouse.

In total, there are over 1000 federal rights that homosexual couples are prevented from obtaining.  Now do you really think that homosexual couples have "almost all" of the rights of heterosexual ones?
Plus...I find the "gay rights" movement mildly offensive....since they are requesting rights that don't exactly qualify as "basic human rights".

Goshdarnit, gay people shouldn't have the right to walk down the street unassaulted!

Date: 2006/05/24 14:25:10, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (stevestory @ May 24 2006,19:54)
No sexual inequality exists(the original reason for 50% laws and alimony)

That's actually not true, though it's very PC right now.  There are very real brain differences between the sexes.

What was meant here was no sexual inequality exists in a homosexual relationship.

I really don't see how that's in any way relevant to gay marriage.  Maybe he'll actually translate it into logic.

Date: 2006/05/25 05:56:56, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (PuckSR @ May 24 2006,20:42)

You actually don't know, do you?  People who are legally married get the following:
Social security, medicare, disability, and military benefits of the spouses.
The right to make medical decisions for the spouse, should he or she become incapacitated.
The right to visit the spouse in the hospital during non-visiting hours.
The right of joint adoption.
The right to arrange a burial for the spouse.

Hmm...should we really care about "financial benefits"?
Is that really what the "gay rights" movement is about?

Did you really see the bit about medical care?  How is that in any way related to financial benefits?  And, by the way, giving financial breaks to one type of couple and not to another is f***ing hypocritical.  I'm all for removing them from marriage, period.
So...have you ever heard of "power of attorney"...that would cover many of the other benefits....

Wrong.  Many gay couples have made various arrangements, only to find them considered invalid by various organizations.
Joint adoption....change adoption laws

Except that many states are making laws outlawing it right now.  The only way that gay couples will be getting joint adoption in those states is if the laws are struck down by the courts or reversed by the citizens (and in order to do that, you have to convince them that homosexuals are not child molesters).
I once heard about a gay couple where the boyfriend was not allowed to visit in the hospital...despite prior legal arrangments....

Exactly my point above.  Those arrangements aren't seen as legal by many groups.
What would a gay married couple do?

Have that right.
Would he have brought the marriage license?

Are you a moron?  He would be listed as a spouse and be allowed to visit.  Do heterosexual couples have to jump through hoops?
Gay married couples want 2 things
1.  Financial breaks given to married couples
2.  Acceptance for their lifestyle

No shit to #2.  Being gay is any other minority, only without protection from hate crimes.
Every other "right" can be granted via alternative legal proceedings....

Not if citizens keep on passing laws and ammending state constitutions.
Im not trying to be inflammatory...but could you either point me towards a "right" that doesnt involve finances or acceptance....that they cannot obtain right now
(an example of acceptance would be "visitation in the hospital" or "co-adoption" rights)

You know, if people actually accepted gay people and didn't discriminate (something that's perfectly legal in many states), there wouldn't be the whole gay rights movement.  Would there have been a black rights movment if they weren't treated like second-class citizens.
In other words, you're not making any sense.  
Goshdarnit, gay people shouldn't have the right to walk down the street unassaulted!

Absolutely not...but I dont have that right either...
I have the right to press charges against someone who does assault me...but there is no guarantee that I will not be assaulted...

If you were attacked because of your ethnicity, sex, age, or disability, you would be protected under the law.  Many states do not have sexual orientation hate crime laws.
The explanation of "sexual equality" is self-explanatory

No really, I don't know how you're using the phrase, as it's used in so many ways.  Sexual equality as in equal human rights?  Equal rights to a job?  Equality as in the same abilities across the sexes?  How does any of it have to do with marriage?

Date: 2006/05/25 06:21:20, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (skeptic @ May 25 2006,00:31)
It seemed for awhile that punctuated equilibrium would gain some traction, but not so much.  Thats not a case of 'forced fit' exactly, but it did deviate from the accepted theory and faded.

Oh snap!  My biology professors and textbooks were lying to me! They said it can be a way of describing many evolutionary changes!

You show your ignorance when you say that PE is opposed to and was trying to replace current ToE.

(Talking of PE, couldn't endosymbiotic theory and horizontal gene transfer be considered forms of PE?  Massive jumps in the quantity genetic material rather than the slower process of mutation can bring about amazingly rapid change.)

Date: 2006/05/25 09:57:06, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (BWE @ May 25 2006,15:44)
People, people,

Aren't we forgetting the main thing here? T-diddy is an idiot. Really. C'mon. Yes gay marriage can be debated by rational people and the debate can be heated but this isn't about that. It's about something far more sublime: a guy who can honestly talk about a liberal agenda as if it were a massive, unified thing and somehow turn that into an argument against evolution. This guy is really far out there and puts himself here as sport for the creative side of the posters here. Save real debate for real people. Wow, maybe that will be my little tagline that some people put at the bottom of their posts in a different color:

Save real debate for real people. :)

Thanks for the sanity check.  I'm going to try to ignore this thread now.  I don't understand how PuckSR can be willingly blind to the fact that a minority is suffering because the majority is too hung up on their own problems, is scared of people who aren't "normal," and wants a scapegoat for current social problems.  Maybe he has a mirror neuron dysfunction. ;)

Date: 2006/05/25 10:01:30, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (jeannot @ May 25 2006,13:15)
Gene combinations are borken by sexual

Sorry, I couldn't help but laugh at that part.  It's a bit of humor after smashing my head against a brick wall.

Date: 2006/05/25 10:19:04, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (afdave @ May 25 2006,13:06)

Wow!  I was only off by a factor of 2!  Do I win a consolation prize?

Dave, what's the genetic similarity between humans and mice?  What's the genetic similarity between humans and fruit flies?  Both of these answers can be found in five minutes on Google.

Date: 2006/05/25 10:34:41, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (jeannot @ May 25 2006,16:25)
Quote (Ladlergo @ May 25 2006,15:01)
Quote (jeannot @ May 25 2006,13:15)
Gene combinations are borken by sexual

Sorry, I couldn't help but laugh at that part.  It's a bit of humor after smashing my head against a brick wall.

LOL, sorry for the typo. But my English dictionary says nothing about 'borken', (apparently, it's a german word)

Date: 2006/05/25 10:39:32, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (Joe the Ordinary Guy @ May 25 2006,16:33)
Still,  I’ll stick with my vote for murder. Can anyone think of any others?

How about raping one's prepubescent offspring?  I think that's pretty universal.

Date: 2006/05/30 06:16:07, Link
Author: Ladlergo
I'm one of the people who watches the ID article on Wikipedia, though I'm mostly active on the talk page. Here is the part that I'm currently working on.  For people who chose not to go to Wikipedia and look at it, here's the summary of what I've been asked to provide:

Behe's quote about astrology: Gave reference to KvD transcripts.
Experiments requested by IDist: I found a reference fpr the create-flagellum-in-a-flask theoretical experiment (Behe) but I'm still looking for a create-bacteria-in-a-flask reference.  Any other versions of that experiment are appreciated.
Predictive power of ID: Given that I don't even remember what IDists say that ID predicts, I don't know where to start looking for references.
Experiments that refute statements made by IDists (ie immune system): Have them bookmarked? The more the merrier.  However, I'll probably pick through for the best ones.

Given that I have a Real Life, I'd rather not spend all of my hours gathering these references.  That's why I've come here. ;) Even if you just remember a key phrase, toss it in and I'll start digging through Google.


Date: 2006/05/30 09:03:24, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ May 30 2006,14:28)
NCSE transcripts page 39, line 9. This is where Behe says that Astrology is a scientific theory. Hope that's one that you wanted.

Thanks, but I already got that. ;)

I just found mention of Behe's flagellum-in-a-flask theoretical experiment. Does anyone remember any others?

Date: 2006/06/07 04:29:13, Link
Author: Ladlergo
*shakes fist* Why are the non-drinkers unfairly persecuted?

(Least detested: fruit liquor, or something that can be mostly ignored in a mixed drink.  I think most alcohol tastes like something I'd use to strip the paint off my walls.)

((Why do I always spell alcohol as "alchohol"?  It's a habit I can't seem to break.))

Date: 2006/06/07 04:43:39, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 07 2006,10:41)
Thordaddy, let's change the subject. Let's have a different intellectual debate. All of us here.

RESOLVED: Thordaddy is fabulous! How many of us agree?

Now how about that hug!

I usually poke around on this board because I won't start laughing while at work.  So much for that.

Date: 2006/06/08 09:44:27, Link
Author: Ladlergo
English (native)

Date: 2006/06/08 09:49:57, Link
Author: Ladlergo
Quote (afdave @ June 08 2006,15:47)
Rilke ...    
F'r example, if you make a claim about linguistics, you need to support it with linguistc arguments.
...and preferably spelled correctly too, right?

Gotcha, Rilke ...

You might have more success if you actually addressed his points.

But I'm not going to hold my breath.