Gay penguins!

[unriggable]

Indeed. Does anyone else find it appropriate that I got my 1000th post in a gay penguin thread?

With that avatar, yes, yes it is entirely appropriate.

[Harijan]

Being a parent, I think we are all overemphasizing what kids get out of books. If kids books had a permanent impact on kids then my sons would:

Think that trains talk with bad british accents and have goofy faces
Believe that there is a red furry bipolar monster that wants to hug and love them constantly.
Think that there really are such things as green eggs and ham
Believe that no one can ever find waldo
Believe that they must share every strawberry they find or the big hungry bear will get them.
Be frightened of the monster hiding at the end of every book
And lastly they would know that moms prefer shaken to stirred.

Kids learn behavior by example, not books.

A gay penguin book is a social statement, not an attempt to educate kids on alternative family structures.

Do we really need to use children's books to make social statements? I would prefer it if the author would just go on a terminal hunger strike, and leave the book writing to others.

And yes, my boys will be aware and accepting of homosexual parented families even though I don't agree with the practice.

[Dekloren]

9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

[Dariune]

Cab you get gay penguins.

Man that would rick. A gay fuckingg oengun bar. Imagine being chucjed in one of thise

[Neoteny]

Being a parent, I think we are all overemphasizing what kids get out of books. If kids books had a permanent impact on kids then my sons would:

Think that trains talk with bad british accents and have goofy faces
Believe that there is a red furry bipolar monster that wants to hug and love them constantly.
Think that there really are such things as green eggs and ham
Believe that no one can ever find waldo
Believe that they must share every strawberry they find or the big hungry bear will get them.
Be frightened of the monster hiding at the end of every book
And lastly they would know that moms prefer shaken to stirred.

Kids learn behavior by example, not books.

A gay penguin book is a social statement, not an attempt to educate kids on alternative family structures.

Do we really need to use children's books to make social statements? I would prefer it if the author would just go on a terminal hunger strike, and leave the book writing to others.

And yes, my boys will be aware and accepting of homosexual parented families even though I don't agree with the practice.

I'll be damned if I couldn't find Waldo. Are you telling me that none of the books from your childhood didn't have an impact on your life? I agree that the book is a social statement, most famous classical literature is for that matter, but I can also see it being used as a tool just like any other book. It's all in how you use it.

[heavycola]

a little off-topic, but i was reading a book by stephen jay gould the other day and found out what 'neoteny' means. Quite appropriate here i feel

[Harijan]

All I am saying is kids are much more likely to act like their parents, than act like what they read in books.

if you want to have a conversation with your 3 year old about same sex parents then by all means go for the penguin book. You may also want to make an appointment with a shrink and talk to him about the unrealistic expectations you have for your kids.

Simply put, kids don't care or even comprehend who has a mom, dad, two dads, two moms, or comes from a fucking coven of vampire parents. As long as the vampire kid doesn't try to take their toys, its all good.

Heavy, which Gould you reading?

[heavycola]

Simply put, kids don't care or even comprehend who has a mom, dad, two dads, two moms, or comes from a fucking coven of vampire parents. As long as the kid doesn't try to take their toys, its all good.

It was The Panda's Thumb. He's a better writer than dawkins i think. It was an essay on the evolution of Mickey Mouse from ratlike reprobate to massive-eyed moralist. Interesting stuff. Any other recommendations?

[Harijan]

It was The Panda's Thumb. He's a better writer than dawkins i think. It was an essay on the evolution of Mickey Mouse from ratlike reprobate to massive-eyed moralist. Interesting stuff. Any other recommendations?

Mismeasure of Man is a much better read than Panda's Thumb in my opinion.

As far as how he measures up to Dawkins, Dawkins arguments have holes so big you could roll Billy's wife through them. Gould writes much more cohesive arguments with much less of a political agenda.

Gould put his theories out there as new ideas that he wants tested by others. Dawkins just tries to incite people to fight him.

[Neoteny]

a little off-topic, but i was reading a book by stephen jay gould the other day and found out what 'neoteny' means. Quite appropriate here i feel

Indeed, it is rather ironic, in this case.

As far as how he measures up to Dawkins, Dawkins arguments have holes so big you could roll Billy's wife through them. Gould writes much more cohesive arguments with much less of a political agenda.


Gould put his theories out there as new ideas that he wants tested by others. Dawkins just tries to incite people to fight him.

I assume you're really just talking about one of his books... though he does have a habit of getting a little political in all of them. But I'm not really sure what ideas Gould was putting out that he wanted tested. If we're talking religion and such, I seriously doubt he had any ideas that are going to be tested. If you're talking about land snails and punctuated equilibrium, then his ideas aren't any better or worse than Dawkins'. Neither one might be right or wrong, but there is data supporting their positions.

As far as the kids go, you can start your kids whenever you want. But if my kids have a question, it might be easier to sit down with them with a book. If they ask at three, then I'll explain it at three. And I think it's a bit naive to think kids only learn one way. But whatever floats your boat, man.

[Harijan]

I assume you're really just talking about one of his books... though he does have a habit of getting a little political in all of them. But I'm not really sure what ideas Gould was putting out that he wanted tested. If we're talking religion and such, I seriously doubt he had any ideas that are going to be tested. If you're talking about land snails and punctuated equilibrium, then his ideas aren't any better or worse than Dawkins'. Neither one might be right or wrong, but there is data supporting their positions.

Dawkins presents his arguments as if he is opening the eyes of the ignorant and liberating religious believers from the prison of their own ignorance.

Gould sticks to the facts and makes observations about the data. He doesn't take that final indulgent step of speculation that cause Dawkins' arguments to implode under the critical eye.

Dawkins is a great writer, and he does achieve his purpose, but his purpose is not to create solid defendable arguments. He wants to incite debate and argument, sells more books.

I like both writers, but if ever had a chance to meet one I would much prefer an hour with Gould than with Dawkins.

[Neoteny]

I assume you're really just talking about one of his books... though he does have a habit of getting a little political in all of them. But I'm not really sure what ideas Gould was putting out that he wanted tested. If we're talking religion and such, I seriously doubt he had any ideas that are going to be tested. If you're talking about land snails and punctuated equilibrium, then his ideas aren't any better or worse than Dawkins'. Neither one might be right or wrong, but there is data supporting their positions.

Dawkins presents his arguments as if he is opening the eyes of the ignorant and liberating religious believers from the prison of their own ignorance.

Gould sticks to the facts and makes observations about the data. He doesn't take that final indulgent step of speculation that cause Dawkins' arguments to implode under the critical eye.

Dawkins is a great writer, and he does achieve his purpose, but his purpose is not to create solid defendable arguments. He wants to incite debate and argument, sells more books.

I like both writers, but if ever had a chance to meet one I would much prefer an hour with Gould than with Dawkins.

It would actually be a hard decision for me, as I like them both as well. But I disagree with you as far as Dawkins goes for all his books except for The God Delusion. As a biologist who knows the subject, I've found everything he's written as far as science goes has been exceedingly well done. I think people tend to mistake his simplification of a subject as a condescending "look, this is how it really is," particularly in his books on evolution. That's part of the reason I enjoy him as much as I do. He takes an incredibly complex subject and makes it very easy to grasp (well, the same goes for Gould too). Perhaps he should keep his politics to himself in his science books (his views in The Selfish Gene do date the book), but people who read The God Delusion knew what they were getting into. I don't think the title is misleading. I won't deny or his condescension of religion though, but I can't bring myself to condemn it either.

[Harijan]

I also come from a biology training (although I havn't worked in the field for many years).

I find that Gould's writing style is much more convincing while Dawkins is much more polarizing.

When people talk to me and want to actually understand evolution instead of religious rhetoric of evolution I always refer them to Gould, not Dawkins.

[Neoteny]

I also come from a biology training (although I havn't worked in the field for many years).

I find that Gould's writing style is much more convincing while Dawkins is much more polarizing.

When people talk to me and want to actually understand evolution instead of religious rhetoric of evolution I always refer them to Gould, not Dawkins.

To each his own. I usually recommend Ancestor's Tale.

[heavycola]

I also come from a biology training (although I havn't worked in the field for many years).

I find that Gould's writing style is much more convincing while Dawkins is much more polarizing.

When people talk to me and want to actually understand evolution instead of religious rhetoric of evolution I always refer them to Gould, not Dawkins.

To each his own. I usually recommend Ancestor's Tale.

I loved it. I also loved the god delusion. And the blind watchmaker. I think gould is a better writer, aesthetically speaking. Dawkins can be insufferable on occasion.

I ALSO found out what harijan means by chance, when my wife was talking about ghandi yesterday. I have dirt on you all.

[Harijan]

ROFL it is a fantastic name with a great history. I doubt there is more Ironic or oxymoronic word in any language than Harijan.


It is amazing to me that one of the most important people of the 20th century used Harijan as his medium to communicate with the world, yet today no one has even heard of the word.