Matt Yglesias

24 Responses to “Top Gay Penguins References of 2008”

1. Hector Says:
   December 27th, 2008 at 8:59 am

   Ho hum. Hilzoy’s post is little more than usual nonsense from tiresome yahoos ignorant of what natural law really means. Hint, the fact that a given sexual behavior occurs in natural does not make it ‘natural’ inb the requisite sense. It’s a pity that today’s Yglesian hipsters are not better acquainted with the fundamental s of moral philosophy, but the rest of us should not be required to pander to their ignorance, or to pretend as though their opinions deserve equal respect as anyone else’s.

2. Justin Case Says:
   December 27th, 2008 at 9:42 am

   I heard Herzog give a talk once where he proclaimed that he alone “understood the true value of a glass of water”. That dude’s got a little of the crazy.

3. duBois Says:
   December 27th, 2008 at 10:05 am

   Encounters at the End of the World is pretty weak Herzog. Much better was 2007’s Rescue Dawn. EATEOTW is just a bit of striking photography with Herzog’s indulgent narration. Herzog’s a fine artist, but he’s a bit of a pompous, uber-serious twat sometimes. There’s a funny bit in a clip about the music in Grizzly Man where one of the techies do a dead-on parody of Herzog to his face, and although Herzog smiles throughout the parody, he is Not Amused.

4. EKR Says:
   December 27th, 2008 at 10:21 am

   Hector,

   You’re sort of right, in that “natural law” is a term of art in Scholastic (i.e., Catholic) moral philosophy, and so Hilzoy is talking past the pope’s argument and using the term “nature” in its more common sense. On the other hand, since practically nobody but Catholics takes the Catholic view of “natural law” as a serious basis for moral philosophy, it’s not like the rest of us really need to act as if arguments based on it are particularlyl convincing.

5. Marcel Says:
   December 27th, 2008 at 10:27 am

   I have a PhD in moral theology from a Catholic university, and I’m here to tell you that the odiously smug Hector is full of shit.

6. live Says:
   December 27th, 2008 at 11:01 am

   Accusing Hilzoy of not being acquainted with the fundamentals of moral philosophy is pretty hilariously clueless.

7. Hector Says:
   December 27th, 2008 at 12:49 pm

   Marcel,

   Whatever. The other twits in this thread can be excused on the grounds of “invincible ignorance”, as it were, but you should know better. You should be ashamed of yourself. You appear to prefer to listen to the World rather than the Word.

   EKR,

   Don’t be silly. I’m not a Catholic, for what it’s worth. Many non-Catholics and non-Christians have used the basic premises of reasoning from the natural order as guidelines for constructing a system of moral reasoning. I am not, myself, a follower of everything the Scholastics said. Not by a long shot.

   I do, however, think that the basic idea of trying to determine the natural ends of human tendencies and aspirations, and trying to construct a moral system based on obedience to our true natures, is a good one. It’s a good framework for reasoning about economics, the environment, and issues of life and death, so I see no reason why it shouldn’t be applicable to sexuality as well. Certainly I haven’t seen a better and more convincing framework of moral philosophy, of the many that have been proposed. If you have speciifc disagreements with what Pope Benedict said about moral ecology, please state them.

8. Marcel Says:
   December 27th, 2008 at 1:59 pm

   You appear to prefer to listen to the World rather than the Word.

   I thought we were working by the light of natural reason here? Or is your natural law not so natural after all? I’d be curious to know what you are if not Catholic, since you seem bent on that form of reasoning.

   Your finding it the most persuasive does not entail that I should know better or be ashamed of myself. (You don’t agree with me on metaphysics! You should be ashamed of yourself!) Perhaps I understand its history, structure, and flaws better than you do. Is it possible in your fragile psychology that someone understands something better than you? Or is everything “sed contra dice Hector” in your world?

9. EKR Says:
   December 27th, 2008 at 2:12 pm

   Hector,

   Again, the problem is clarity about the term “natural law”. If it refers to the particular flavor of reasoning about what’s appropriate used by the scholastics and the RC, then sure, that’s not what Hilzoy is doing. But as I said, most modern philosophers don’t find that a particularly compelling form of reasoning, so so what? On the other hand, if the method is “listening to the natural world”, then it’s not clear that it’s that useful a technique for figuring out what’s ethical, as Hilzoy observes. As for specific objections to the argument Pope Benedict offered, the premises (marriage is a sacrament instituted by the creator, there’s some order of creation that we need to “respect”) are ones I don’t accept, so why would I believe the conclusions?

10. wiley Says:
    December 27th, 2008 at 3:44 pm

    It’s quite natural and universal for some humans to be gay. Bringing penguins into the argument is just silly.

11. Steve Sailer Says:
    December 27th, 2008 at 10:26 pm

    Herzog keeps complaining about how eccentric the scientists are at the South Pole, and how hard it was to keep his conversation with an American penguin expert going. But his first two questions for the poor man were:

    “Are there gay penguins?”

    “Is there much … insanity among penguins?”

    It was like an old Mike Myers skit about “Dieter Goes to Antarctica.”

12. Dilan Esper Says:
    December 28th, 2008 at 12:31 am

    Hector, you are missing the forest for the trees. Obviously, gender identification issues are common enough to raise the question of what a person who has them should do. The Pope, and those who want to talk about fixed, unchanging, essential differences between men and women, have no answer to the problem, or at least have no answer that doesn’t involve the person with the problem simply living out their life in a state of tremendous suffering.

    I might add that there are also humans born intersex. They have both types of genitals, or both female and male sex characteristics and hormonal imbalances. They often have sex reassignment surgery eventually as well. The Pope, again, has nothing to say for these people except they should suffer.

    In other words, in the end, the problem with what the Pope is doing is that he has no idea about the gender roles that he is opining on, no idea of the torment that these people live under, and no idea of the actual, observed emperical information that modern medicine and science has generated on this topic. The Pope shouldn’t be opining about things he knows nothing about. He’s not a blog commenter. He’s the leader of a great religion whose statements have the imprimatur of God for a lot of people.

    Let’s let the medical and psychiatric community handle the issue of gender reassignment. They know what they are doing. The Pope is ignorant.

13. Richard Steven Hack Says:
    December 29th, 2008 at 7:20 am

    It’s common knowledge among zoologists and biologists that homosexuality is quite common in the animal world – from lesbian duck pairs in the bird kingdom right up the line to primates.

    All natural behavior is on a Bell Curve, like everything else. Human sexual behavior is the least important behavior that humans engage in – as long as it’s not repressed. But it’s the one that people seeking control over other people can use to disrupt the mental functioning of entire societies to their benefit. Which is why the religions focus on repressing it.

    Hector is an idiot. His ilk should and will be executed in due time.

14. viagra Says:
    March 11th, 2009 at 5:17 am

    Great site. Good info

15. zyban Says:
    March 13th, 2009 at 12:13 am

    If you have to do it, you might as well do it right

16. tramadol Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 6:35 am

    tramadol
    Great site. Good info

17. viagra brand Says:
    April 3rd, 2009 at 4:30 am

    I want to say – thank you for this!
    cheap brand pfizer viagra

18. cheap viagra Says:
    April 9th, 2009 at 8:48 am

    Thanks for the review! viagra