The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

The ducks are gonna get you

Posted 13 October 2012 by PZ Myers

Some poor young girl, deeply miseducated and misled, wrote into a newspaper with a letter trying to denounce homosexuality with a bad historical and biological argument. She's only 14, and her brain has already been poisoned by the cranks and liars in her own family…it's very sad. Here's the letter — I will say, it's a very creative argument that would be far more entertaining if it weren't wrong in every particular.

I've transcribed it below. I couldn't help myself, though, and had to, um, annotate it a bit.

Homosexuality, including same sex marriage, is not an enlightened idea [But tolerance and acceptance of diversity are]. The Romans practiced homosexuality [Every culture has had homosexual individuals; they differ only in the degree of suppression. The Romans actually regarded homosexuals as effete and inferior, and used accusations of gayness as expressions of contempt, just like modern middle schoolers]. Surely, after 2000 years, our level of intelligence should have evolved somewhat, so that we can truly pride ourselves of being cleverer than our forebears [Two millennia is actually a short span of time for biological evolution. Also, have you ever heard of the Dark Ages? Progress is not inevitable].

If homosexuality spreads, it can cause human evolution to come to a standstill [Nope. Homosexuals reproduce. Homosexuality refers to behavior and social preferences, not to biological limitations. Also, many heterosexuals choose to not reproduce as well, and it does not stop evolution in its tracks — in complex social organisms like ours, there are many ways to contribute to the species that don't involve breeding directly]. It could threaten the human position on the evolutionary ladder [There is no evolutionary "ladder". You have some serious misconceptions about biology, young lady!], and say, ducks, could take over the world [Evolution is not about taking over the world. There is no pinnacle. Every species has a different niche, not a different spot in a hierarchy of dominance]. Ducks always nest in pairs [This is called the naturalistic fallacy. You cannot draw conclusions from how one species behaves and declare that it justifies one specific kind of behavior in another species. I could point to gorillas, and announce that we should live in polygamous harems; I could point to bonobos and say that public homosexual acts ought to be accepted as a matter of course, and that we ought to have casual sex as often as we say hello. If you'd like, I could give you a long list of very kinky sexual behaviors practiced by various species on the planet; shall we decide that because ducks rape, so should we, lest we fall behind evolutionarily?] and if we allow same-sex marriage, then the ducks will have evolved further than we have [Ducks are just as "evolved" as we are, and we're not more evolved than any other species on the planet. Evolution is about branching trees, not climbing ladders]. We will be in danger of all being equal, with ducks more equal than us [That makes no sense].

We should learn from history and not be stuck with copying ancient behavior [Are you, by any chance, a follower of Jesus or Mohammed? Because you know, those faiths are all about imposing ancient rules for behavior on modern society]. The government has no right to bring us back to the stone age [But the Middle Ages are OK, I suppose?]. I don't want my children to have to compete with ducks [Wait. I'm trying to puzzle this out. Because you think ducks are all heterosexual, and your children will all be heterosexual (brace yourself, you might get a few surprises in 10 or 20 years there), and a policy of tolerance will turn every other human being homosexual, you're afraid your kids will be competing for mates with ducks? Or is it that duck heterosexuality is the only criterion that makes them acceptable for positions of power, so years from now, your children will find themselves in a workplace dominated by duck bosses, who have overcome the handicap of lack of manipulatory appendages and very small brains to be in charge of everything? I don't get it]. I want them to evolve further than I have [But you don't believe in evolution!]. Any self-respecting human would aim for that, too. [Are you aware that the Abrahamic faiths all preach that humanity is in a state of ineluctable decay since the Fall and that human sin corrupts us? I don't think any self-respecting human should be a Christian or a Jew or Muslim, for the same reason]

None of this really bears any weight for be, because I do not believe in evolution [You don't understand it, either]. However, the powers that be believe in evolution, and have made many decisions based on it. They should be consistent: if you believe in evolution, then you can't be in favour of homosexuality [If you accept evolution, then you recognize that there are diverse successful sexual strategies in the world, and you also have a deeper appreciation of the complexity of biology, so no, you should be much more accepting of reality], or the ducks will get you in the end [You can live your life in fear of ducks, or you can love your fellow human beings and encourage more love in the world. Your choice].

Jasmin H, aged 14 [You have time to grow up!]
Homeschooled [Obviously], Scargill

62 Comments

mjcross42 · 13 October 2012

Now now, not all variations of homeschooling are vacuous religious enterprises. Some are just created by regular people who are sickened by the conversion of public schools to something more akin to prisons, and want their kids to learn how to learn, instead of being taught to pass the ever-increasing number of standardized exams. THese types are, sadly, in a stark minority of all home-schoolers, but they do exist.

bwogilvie · 13 October 2012

I think that must be satire. The bit about the ducks is just too weird.

Nicholas J. Matzke · 13 October 2012

Wow, yeah. Even if you accept the rest of her twisted logic, ducks are like the worst possible choice for her argument. Ducks are the sociopathic sexual criminals of the animal world.

Necrophilia among ducks ruffles research feathers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/mar/08/highereducation.research

http://carlywilson.com/2010/05/ducks-heartless-rapists-or-evolutionary-geniuses/

...etc...

laurence · 13 October 2012

Is there some sort of new vendetta against 14 year old girls who speak put these days? I believe some may have a little too much time on their hands!!

fnxtr · 13 October 2012

I call Poe.

stevaroni · 13 October 2012

Um... has anybody explained to little Jamie that same-sex couples don't, as a general rule, spontaneously produce children without some side of outside help?

I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb here, but I'd predict that homosexual couples have an average birthrate that that tends to limit their direct participation in the evolutionary race to a share that's slightly less than that of the homeschool crowd, so little Jamie can sleep just fine.

Besides, this is the home-school community we're talking about here. It's a well known fact that evolution doesn't exist anyway, so what's she worried about.

Just Bob · 13 October 2012

50/50

Weird and clever enough in its zaniness to be a good Poe.

On the other hand, I have taught previously homeschooled and/or "christian academy" kids capable of writing that in all seriousness.

But then that's the point of Poe's Law: You can't do a parody of a fundamentalist that's so extreme that some fundies won't agree with it completely.

stevaroni · 13 October 2012

Just Bob said: 50/50 Weird and clever enough in its zaniness to be a good Poe.
Or... maybe... just maybe... it's a piece of misdirection from the ducks. Yeah - yeah! That's just what they want us to think! That they're little fluffy furry ... er feathered harmless little ducks. Then - as soon as we're not looking, BAM! they evolve into ravenous crocoducks and chase us down because we've all grown fat and slow. Crafty, crafty little buggers, those ducks. But now they've tipped their hand. Well! No more tasty breadcrusts after lunch in the park for you and your ilk, Mr Flappy. I'm watching now.

Henry J · 13 October 2012

Well this is just Daffy.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 13 October 2012

When creationists begin worrying about competition from ducks, it's time for some reassessments of their education strategies.

Not that there's anything new about that...

Glen Davidson

Dave Luckett · 13 October 2012

Home-schooled. The letter is ludicrous, a pastiche of ridiculous distortions. It's risible, and laughter is the only possible response, for a bit. But after that bit, I realised this: this is a fourteen-year-old who has been denied an education by intent by parents who have deliberately crippled her mind for their own purposes.

I stopped laughing at about that point.

SWT · 13 October 2012

OK, I admit it: I laughed out loud when I read:

... you can't be in favour of homosexuality, or the ducks will get you in the end.

Obviously, they can't "get you in the end" if you keep your pants on ...

Flint · 13 October 2012

I once had the dubious pleasure of chatting on the net with a 16-year-old who'd been home-schooled by a notorious internet crank. He was intelligent, polite, articulate -- and profoundly, wildly misinformed about everything. He didn't seem able to even conceive of the idea that assertions are not evidence. For him, all observations were either ratifications of his assertions or misinterpretations suffered by those unschoold in the Truth.

So I had a free home demonstration of Dawkins' position that this boy, like the girl who wrote this letter, are victims of a truly pernicious sort of child abuse. One almost impossible to rectify later in life. And I understood the terrors of being a parent. I'm glad I've never been one, the responsibility is too intimidating.

bigdakine · 13 October 2012

That's despicable...

aluchko · 14 October 2012

I have to agree with all the others calling this a Poe, the bit about the ducks is simply too ridiculous to be unintentional.

Piotr Gąsiorowski · 14 October 2012

Nicholas J. Matzke said: Wow, yeah. Even if you accept the rest of her twisted logic, ducks are like the worst possible choice for her argument. Ducks are the sociopathic sexual criminals of the animal world. Necrophilia among ducks ruffles research feathers...
Yep, I was just about to point out the same thing. Ducks are every inch as pervert as any human. Here is the original article. Note the following passage: Bagemihl (1999) in his well-researched and exhaustive overview of animal homosexuality, showed that in the mallard 'the proportion of male homosexual pairs varies between populations, anywhere from 2-19 percent of all pairs'. So, male homosexuality can be regarded as a common phenomenon among mallards.

harold · 14 October 2012

This looks very, very much like a parody, but could be a juvenile attempt at humor by a real fourteen year old. If it is a juvenile attempt at humor, it reveals unconscious doubts about the writer's own assertions, already beginning to develop. If it isn't a parody, the person who wrote it is an innocent victim of deliberate imposition of a bad education.
So I had a free home demonstration of Dawkins’ position that this boy, like the girl who wrote this letter, are victims of a truly pernicious sort of child abuse.
This statement intended as a friendly elaboration and extension of the discussion... I understand where this is coming from, but it's a very loaded statement. If this letter was written by a child, the bad education may have been selective. The grammar and spelling are reasonable. A child who is physically abused, given an inadequate diet, not taught basic literacy and mathematics, and/or not protected from dangerous situations outside the home is very likely to have severe difficulties throughout life. This type of thing is done to children by some actively religious people and by some non-religious people, but not by all religious people. A child who is not subjected to any of that, and many children raised by religious people are not, but who is taught to be religious, even in a way that we may find offensive or ridiculous, is in far better shape any way you look at it, and statistically, has an excellent chance of abandoning the parents' religion when they become an adult.
One almost impossible to rectify later in life.
Fortunately, this is not the case. Writing something stupid at fourteen (if this were written by a fourteen year old) is not at all a strong predictor of still writing stupid things later in life. If anything, this silly letter, even if written by a fourteen year old, may still signify veiled or unconscious criticism of the very attitudes it ostensibly promotes. In short, it is probably satire, conscious or unconscious, no matter who wrote it. It "supports" a position by offering very weak arguments "in favor" of it. And not the standard canned but accepted weak arguments, but deliberately constructed weak arguments. Ducks have been suggested to be the animal considered overall the most funny by humans (I am not making that up). I suspect that even if not deliberate satire, this letter indicated cognitive dissonance. (If I had to bet I would guess it was written by a male sixteen year old as a deliberate satire, but I can't be sure.)

Prometheus68 · 14 October 2012

Jasmin's ducks are no doubt creationist canards.

ksplawn · 14 October 2012

What I'm getting from this is that there's a lot of sick ducks out there.

apokryltaros · 14 October 2012

fnxtr said: I call Poe.
Remember that a "Poe" is totally indistinguishable from the real deal. And I've dealt with plenty of people outside of the Internet who are so grotesquely ignorant of Evolution, that on this or vaguely related topics, they will string together barely coherent strings of words and curdle your brain into Limburger headcheese. (i.e., one friend of mine argued that the Big Bang couldn't have happened because nobody could have survived an explosion that powerful)

mharri · 14 October 2012

This sounds a bit like what C. S. Lewis would call chronological snobbery.

harold · 14 October 2012

mharri said: This sounds a bit like what C. S. Lewis would call chronological snobbery.
Assuming C. S. Lewis was referring to ageism, devaluing people according to their chronological age, then no, this conversation does not sound the least bit like that. All of the comments here mainly address the content of what has been written, and most would be fundamentally the same if the writer self-identified as 34 or 94 rather than 14. The writer self-identifies, whether honestly or not, as being fourteen years old. It is not ageism to note that fourteen year olds are still maturing, and sometimes express ideas that they later grow out of. Of course, it is also that case that innumerable situations arise, in which there is a dispute between a fourteen year old an an adult, and the fourteen year old is correct. We should not automatically disrespect the views of fourteen year olds. However, this is not such a situation. The piece being critiqued here is either satire (whether by a fourteen year old or not) or completely wrong (whether by a fourteen year old or not).

DS · 14 October 2012

Using this logic, the Romans worshipped gods, so we should have evolved beyond that by now. Time to get your ducks in a row.

Besides, she neglected to mention the fact that ducks engage in homosexual behavior as well, so I guess they have the advantage because they don't worship gods, not the homosexual thing after all.

John Harshman · 14 October 2012

Finally, a duck post. A bit of background may help. When people say "duck", they're generally talking about mallards. But that's one species, and there are 150 species of ducks, give or take. They run the gamut from lifetime monogamy (particularly for long-lived, tropical species) to no pair bond at all (30 seconds of gamete exchange, and bye-bye). Mallards fall somewhere in the middle. Males and females form pair bonds in the fall, which last partway through the nesting season. The male deserts the female some time during incubation, and may never see her again. Meanwhile, unpaired male mallards are famous for all manner of odd behaviors: rape, of course, mating with other males, mating with dead females, mating with dead males, mating (or attempting to mate) with dogs. All of which can probably be seen somewhere on U-tube. Even so-called lifetime pair bonds not uncommonly experience divorce. And female ducks often lay their eggs in other females' nests; there's even one species that never builds a nest, being a brood parasite of other duck species. Somewhere, there's a duck species that encapsulates or contradicts any moral principle you might care to mention.

mharri · 14 October 2012

harold said: Assuming C. S. Lewis was referring to ageism, devaluing people according to their chronological age, then no, this conversation does not sound the least bit like that.
It is not my wish to seem rude, but I cannot think of how to make this point without seeming so: Google is your friend. If we look at the first result when searching for the phrase 'chronological snobbery,' we find a Wikipedia page. Opening that page, in the first sentence, we find the clause, "describing the erroneous argument that the thinking, art, or science of an earlier time is inherently inferior when compared to that of the present."

harold · 14 October 2012

mharri said:
harold said: Assuming C. S. Lewis was referring to ageism, devaluing people according to their chronological age, then no, this conversation does not sound the least bit like that.
It is not my wish to seem rude, but I cannot think of how to make this point without seeming so: Google is your friend. If we look at the first result when searching for the phrase 'chronological snobbery,' we find a Wikipedia page. Opening that page, in the first sentence, we find the clause, "describing the erroneous argument that the thinking, art, or science of an earlier time is inherently inferior when compared to that of the present."
Arguably, it was a bit lazy of me not to check. On the other hand, deliberate obscurity can be a bit tiresome. I've actually even read more C. S. Lewis than most (I liked the Narnia books and it took me a few tries to convince myself that his other stuff was annoying - to me, that is). It's common for well-educated people not to even have read C. S. Lewis at all. I assume, then, that you are referring to the ostensible fourteen year old, and her chronological snobbery against Ancient Rome. Of course, every human society that has ever existed "practiced homosexuality" in some way or another. I'm a partial chronological snob myself. Not with regard to art, humor, or even some aspects of philosophy. But with regard to science and technology, it's rather silly to deny that people in the past were less knowledgeable than we are now. Whether "knowing less" is equivalent to being "inherently inferior" is a matter of semantics, I suppose.

Mike Elzinga · 14 October 2012

On the golf course duck = “FORE!”.

mharri · 14 October 2012

Yeah, a lot of that was my fault. I really should have been more careful to avoid pronoun ambiguity, and I genuinely didn't think the phrase would be obscure to this sites' regulars. I realized the tone of my post was unwarranted only after I posted; sorry about that.

To get back on topic: honestly, when I saw a post about ducks on an evolution blog, I was thinking it was going to be about the insane reproductive bits the animals have. Somehow, what it turned out to be was even crazier.

eric · 15 October 2012

That's either very amusing satire or very depressing homeschooling.

FYI, comment #26 at PZ's blog gives a screen capture of the local paper that published it (in New Zealand). Which doesn't answer the 'satire or real' question, but at least you can see the primary source if you want to.

Ian Harac · 15 October 2012

I am casting a vote for Poe.

ogremk5 · 15 October 2012

A comment made me wonder something.

It seems to be that young people indoctrinated very early have two choices 1) continue with the path of their indoctrination or 2) escape it. That sounds obvious, but my question is, what are the percentages?

Then I wondered, what about new converts. Those older people that become new converts to something tend to be even more irrational than the young people and, it seems to me, that there is much less of chance of them breaking that hold, because it is voluntary.

So how many people move to the irrational side when they are old enough to know better (for lack of a better phrase)?

Curt Coman · 15 October 2012

With the publication of young Jasmin's letter, I'm pleased to note that anatidaephobia is finally getting the recognition it deserves around here. As you can see, it is a most debilitating condition.

Curt Coman · 15 October 2012

Prometheus68 said: Jasmin's ducks are no doubt creationist canards.
Prometheus, you magnificent bastard! You are my Internet hero of the day!!

curtand2000 · 15 October 2012

It further betrays her knowledge of evolution that she is so presumptuous as to suggest that humans can control their and the planet's evolutionary path.

DavidK · 15 October 2012

Perhaps she was only taking the lesson from her biology text, you know, the one written by Todd Akins of Missouri.

FL · 15 October 2012

Honestly, folks? You're talking about a mere 14-year-old girl's letter to the editor. That's an age in which many schoolteachers are working their tails off just trying to teach kids to write basic sentences and paragraphs.

Yet here's Ms. Jasmin, just 14, a girl who at least can do a little homework, formulate an argument, and express it in readable sentence and paragraphs. Her young composition skills at least pass muster for a "letter to the editor" of a local newspaper. Not bad at all.

She's no expert on anything? Sure. She needs to clarify and improve her homework and arguments? Sure sure.
All in good time. If she sticks with it and works at it, she'll be sharp as a scalpel long before graduation.

But here's the kicker de la kickers: This 14-year-old girl's simple letter has got grown men, a grown biology professor, grown evolutionist Pandas, feeling so threatened and worried that they're attacking her and mocking her for it.

You people gotta be kidding. Sheesh.

So, If Ms. Jasmin or any of her family and friends are reading this particular thread, please know that you can be very proud of this young lady for the letter she wrote to the newspaper. She's just getting started and she'll get even better over time. You tell her that she did a good job, good enough to show up on Panda radar, and to please continue her homework and her writing.

FL

DS · 15 October 2012

So FL, are you defending her "thesis"? Do you think she is right? Is this your "understanding of evolution" as well?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/KirCgV93wJhLm65myiH0mSwTlWCQuwnMxlI4xKqx#26847 · 15 October 2012

I thought Flawed was consigned to the wall. It's about the only appropriate place for him.

If he is paying attention, and he surely isn't, this is worth discussing since science education is a topic most PTer's (except FL) care about.

But he's right about one thing, he thinks "she did a good job". We can believe this to be his true opinion, since Flawed has made arguments at least this stupid many times.

Perhaps he will contact this young lady and suggest that if she does not accept his authority on what duh babble says and does not say that she will be consigned to a wormy Hell.

DS · 15 October 2012

Well Floyd is right about one thing, this probably says more about the home school teachers and the newspaper publisher than it does about the little girl. But he's wrong about the ridicule. If you don't want to be ridiculed for your ignorant opinions, don't spout them in public forums and insult the intelligence of every thinking being. Floyd should take a lesson.

eric · 15 October 2012

FL - I'm not at all mocking her. I think her letter is more a negative statement about the adults in charge of her education than it is a negative statement about her.

And I am worried, but not that she has come up with some amazing argument against evolution. I'm worried when people are homeschooled this poorly, because its not only bad for her, its bad for society at large. To be economically prosperous, this nation needs more knowledge-producers and fewer ditch-diggers. But her parents (and her other educators) are obviously giving her an education that makes her uneligible for pretty much anything but ditch-digging.

DS · 15 October 2012

Well she could make a movie about birds inexplicably attacking a small New England town. I wonder if that would be a hit?

terenzioiltroll · 15 October 2012

None of this really bears any weight for me, because I do not believe in evolution
This sentence tells the whole story about her frame of mind and that of her educators. She thinks evolution is some kind of religion or philosophy, to believe in. Something that, if you do not heed, does not bear consequences to you. Like trying to disbelieve the third Newton's law and ignore an incoming bullet. I fear this frame of mind will eventually do us in as a species.

stevaroni · 15 October 2012

FL said: Honestly, folks? You're talking about a mere 14-year-old girl's letter to the editor.
That's cute. The concern troll is all worried because we're being snarky about the Poe. Who says different faiths can't get along.

Malcolm · 15 October 2012

DS said: So FL, are you defending her "thesis"? Do you think she is right? Is this your "understanding of evolution" as well?
From what I've read of his comments, I'd say that her understanding is greater than his.

Bobsie · 15 October 2012

This is most likely the source if anyone is interested. Probably not a Poe, but real honest to goodness ignorance.

http://www.scargillmovement.org

mharri · 15 October 2012

FL said: Honestly, folks? You're talking about a mere 14-year-old girl's letter to the editor. That's an age in which many schoolteachers are working their tails off just trying to teach kids to write basic sentences and paragraphs.
Huh? I don't know about you, but my class was studying Romeo and Juliet and That Was Then, This Is Now when I was 14. The emphasis was on understanding the work as a whole, and the development of the works' themes. I dare say a fourteen-year-old had better be able to string an argument together better than this, if just by following the essay template of Introduction, Body, Conclusion. Her instructors are doing her a terrible injustice.

ogremk5 · 15 October 2012

When I was 14 I was reading John Gribbon's In Search of Shroedinger's Cat, In Search of the Double Helix, etc. I had already written several short stories and won a couple of debates in UIL.

I can't believe that I've finally met someone who's more down on US education than I am.

Honestly, this poor girl is in serious trouble. She's got less than 4 years to get her head on straight or she's doomed when she goes to college. (Keeping in mind that theological schools don't like women, so that path is right out.)

In all probability, she will get married right after high school (or perhaps before graduation), and never do anything educational in her life again. She will think her life is great, but she has no skills, no real ability to learn new skills, and no useful knowledge about anything. If her husband leaves her (and statistically that's a better than 50/50 shot), then she will have to go on welfare and hope that she can get and keep a minimum wage job. Hopefully, she won't be trying to raise 3-4 kids on that job as well.

I assure you that a divorced mother will NOT receive charity from her church. I've seen it dozens of times before. Divorcees are ostracized from most churches, if not explicitly, then subtly and painfully until they leave on their on.

This girls parents have basically turned her into a brood mare for more Christian babies.

DS · 15 October 2012

Bobsie said: This is most likely the source if anyone is interested. Probably not a Poe, but real honest to goodness ignorance. http://www.scargillmovement.org
Thanks Bobsie. I think you are correct. In the program menu there is a pull down entitled "Environmental". It lists a course with the title Geology and Genesis. Here is the description: How does what we see in the landscape around us help us to handle the issue of what some perceive as a clash of Science and Scripture? Come and be introduced to a few of Peter’s favourite fossils, and get introduced to the geology of our beautiful local area. Peter Ryder is, amongst other things, an archaeologist, singer/songwriter and Reader in the Church of England. The course costs 115 British pounds, which I assume is something like three hundred dollars US. Looks like little missy took the course and swallowed it hook line and sinker. Now she is afraid of those darn evolving avians catching up to her.

Sylvilagus · 15 October 2012

DS said: Well she could make a movie about birds inexplicably attacking a small New England town. I wonder if that would be a hit?
It would work better as a California town, maybe Bodega Bay?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/n2WhMtEQrvsReG10Z0oryyrwcalqfxDNMct2#93ec7 · 15 October 2012

(Keeping in mind that theological schools don’t like women, so that path is right out.)
WhoaH!!! Where'd you get that idea?! Which schools are you talking about? Are they accredited or not accredited? Which country? Iran? It certainly doesn't fit for accredited schools in Canada and the U.S., and I doubt your statement would apply to the vast majority of unaccredited ones. Check out the female:male ratio--often more females than males. Bible Colleges are called "Bridal Colleges" and as a student I attended many many weddings during the summers. Both sexes would go to Bible College because they knew it was a great place to meet the opposite sex (and in some cases, the same sex). At the end of four years, I was one of the three guys from our original class of 85 students not married or engaged to someone they'd met at Bible College. One of the big complaints we heard from females at other colleges/universities (during our athletic competitions against colleges across Canada) was that there weren't enough guys to go around for all the women. And this wasn't a liberal bible college--it was quite fundamental where most of the students (including me) thought the earth was a few thousand years old, and the Bible was inerrant as written in the original language. Our profs were mostly silent on the matter, which in retrospect I wish they hadn't been. So if a fundamental college welcomed women, and other fundamental colleges we interacted with across Canada had more women than men, and the recurrent meme in fundamentalist churches in the states and Canada was lots of women at college, then this hardly supports the idea they don't like women (or if they didn't like women, they didn't have any difficulty with accepting their money and admitting them, and letting them take any classes they wanted to take providing they had the course prerequisites (being male was not a prerequisite, btw ;) ). That was undergraduate. Graduate work at theological seminaries had a more balanced ratio. The only classes (undergraduate ones) where there were more guys by far than females were the classes aimed at students wanting to become pastors. On the other hand counselling and music theory/voice/ear-training/history were dominated by females. Mind you, this was all 30 years ago so did a quick search for my old college to see what they're up to--front page is this "Preparing women and men to think, live, serve and lead in the Church and in the world." Hardly an indication they don't like women.

harold · 15 October 2012

Bobsie said: This is most likely the source if anyone is interested. Probably not a Poe, but real honest to goodness ignorance. http://www.scargillmovement.org
I continue to favor satire. I could be wrong, but I have a good reason for doing so. Indoctrinated people use ridiculous arguments, but they follow the script. They do not tend to make up original ridiculous arguments. Regulars here are all intimately familiar with the canned soundbites employed by self-appointed advocates of ID/creationism. They do not mention ducks. They rarely mention Ancient Roman sexuality either, for that matter. I have never seen a sincere letter to the editor by a creationist authoritarian follower that did not make use of the canned arguments. That's the way creationism works. It's authoritarian and hierarchical. There are between a dozen and a hundred accepted authorities who produce the canned arguments (I'm talking about Christian creationism but Islamic and Hindu creationism work in a similar way), all of whom are paid to do so, and virtually all of whom are employed by the DI or by one of the dueling YEC outfits. All of these dozen to a hundred people are very repetitive, and are paid generously to repeat and occasionally create mild extensions of the accepted canned arguments. Everyone else parrots the accepted authorities. FL is a rather unusual creationist because he's a would-be authoritarian leader rather than a typical authoritarian follower. But even FL doesn't go so far off script that he starts talking about ducks. Also, if there is anything related to definitive evolution denial at that Scargill web site, I don't see it. Sometimes religion is just religion. There are millions of religious people, some of them home-schooled, who don't deny major scientific theories.

Bobsie · 15 October 2012

harold said: I continue to favor satire. I could be wrong, but I have a good reason for doing so.
That's the beauty of a Poe. You really can't say one way or the other. LOL

Prometheus68 · 16 October 2012

Bobsie said: This is most likely the source if anyone is interested. Probably not a Poe, but real honest to goodness ignorance. http://www.scargillmovement.org
Jasmin does not appear to be associated with the UK-based Scargill Movement, but rather lives in Scargill, New Zealand, and published her letter in Northern Outlook, a local community paper. There is a front page story about the reaction to Jasmin's letter in today's Northern Outlook. Pity they didn't put in a plug for Panda's Thumb. http://fairfaxmedia.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx JASMIN'S OPINION GOES VIRAL A CONTROVERSIAL letter to the editor written by North Canterbury teenager Jasmin Harrison has gone viral, popping up on homosexual support blogs and even the hallowed pages of the Huffington Post. Jasmin Harrison, 14, wrote in to the Northern Outlook (Oct 3) stating her views on homosexuality and the alleged damage it does to the evolution of humans. ‘‘If you believe in evolution, you can’t be in favour of homosexuality,’’ she said. ‘‘It could threaten the human position on the evolutionary ladder.’’ If humans allow same sex marriage, species such as ducks could surpass humans in evolution, she said. Her comments have attracted the interest of New Zealand blogger Christopher Banks, who shared her letter on his gay men’s support blog, Bi-polar Bear. Since the October 11 posting of the letter, thousands of people have viewed it, some questioning the authenticity of the letter, wondering if it was a hoax. The sheer weight of the speculation has pushed it onto the pages of the Huffington Post, a left-wing online news site based in the US. The Huffington Post is known for its publication of internet phenomenon and popular culture, alongside its mainstream news stories. Jasmin’s mother, Lennie Harrison, told the Northern Outlook she was amused her daughter’s homeschooling project had attracted so much attention. ‘‘We started out talking about how letters to the editor used to be very stiff and formal,’’ she said. ‘‘Nowadays, you can express all kinds of opinions in them and it’s been very interesting to see the reactions in the paper.’’ She said her daughter was well spoken, but not outspoken, and was a committed Christian. ‘‘Jasmin would probably say that this kind of response is in God’s hands now and just carry on,’’ Mrs Harrison said.

DS · 16 October 2012

That letter make it sound like she believes in evolution. Indeed, her "argument" is predicated upon its validity (at least in some twisted sense). Way to go Jasmin, get the word out there. Even home schooled little girls can learn the importance of the unifying principle in biology, no matter what country they live in.

I wonder, if she had written about the evils of the satan inspired theory that the earth goes around the sun, would she have gotten the same reaction? Or would she have been universally condemned as the ignorant pawn that she is?

ogremk5 · 16 October 2012

Sorry, yeah, just making shit up. I based it on my Southern Baptist upbringing where women weren't allowed to do anything.

Bobsie · 16 October 2012

Prometheus68 said: Jasmin does not appear to be associated with the UK-based Scargill Movement, but rather lives in Scargill, New Zealand, and published her letter in Northern Outlook, a local community paper.
So now it's not a Poe? I'm getting dizzy. This is going to be the last Poe I tangle with. But how can you tell? I guess just assume they're all serious and then have a good belly laugh for yourself. And then keep all the children far away from the intellectual carnage.

Renee Marie Jones · 16 October 2012

I am all for letting the ducks have their chance. We have pretty much messed things up, maybe we should let another species give it a try. Though, I guess, birds really already had their chance ... but the asteroid was not really their fault.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 16 October 2012

Newspapers often do some checking to verify first-time writers of letters-to-the-editor. Calling them up and just asking a few little things, that sort of check-up. Same in New Zealand? I would think so, but certainly don't know that specifically. And, being local (as I assume that Jasmin is), it's often harder to just go off making a work of fiction.

So I tend to not to suppose that a letter to the editor is a Poe or what-not. Not saying that bogus letters-to-the-editor get by the rather meager vetting process (and, oh hey, I know her...), but it's not just the internet, with essentially no responsibility, either.

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 16 October 2012

Not saying that bogus letters-to-the-editor get by the rather meager vetting process (and, oh hey, I know her…)
Was supposed to be:
Not saying that bogus letters-to-the-editor don't get by the rather meager vetting process (and, oh hey, I know her…)
of course. Glen Davidson

Dave Lovell · 16 October 2012

Prometheus68 said: Jasmin does not appear to be associated with the UK-based Scargill Movement, but rather lives in Scargill, New Zealand, and published her letter in Northern Outlook, a local community paper.
I'm sure its pure coincidence, the two places could not be further apart. As a further coincidence I was born barely 20 miles from one, and spent my 50th birthday not much further from the other. I did not actually visit Scargill NZ, but must have passed within a few of miles of it. From what I remember of the area Scargill is probably a collection of a few buildings grouped around a Halt on a long closed railway line, originally built as as hub for the surrounding "Sheep Stations" - vast and isolated Ranches. Less than one person per square mile and a thousand sheep each! Home schooling may be the girl's only option.

harold · 16 October 2012

It's very unimportant, but since I like to admit it when I change my mind -

My favoring of "hoax" lazily assumed a US location for the writer.

New Zealand homophobic religious authoritarians may not follow the exact same script as US ones do. The canned arguments about "transitional species", "second law of thermodynamics", "complexity" and so on that get used in comments and letters to the editor thousands of times a day in the US and Canada are somewhat local cultural traits.

I continue to note that the writer, even if consciously serious, exposes cognitive dissonance. Feeling the need to come up with a transparently stupid and false argument in favor of homophobia, and submit it for publication, is not really an expression of deep confidence in the validity of homophobia.

The activity here is similar to that of "damning with faint praise". Overtly, a proposition is defended, but at another level, the defense is so weak, the proposition is called more into question than if the defense had not been offered.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/GrgF88c8jftkzFnKHSke8Dz0g2QRYFTrc2g-#f4736 · 25 October 2012

All that keeps going through my head is "I am the terror that flaps in the night."