h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

some time after king david, cos he had a tiny todger

Hi everybody. Just coming out of lurk mode with some thoughts.


Some time ago I came across a video blog or something like that by Penn of Penn and Teller in which he remarked at some length something along the lines of:

'look, I respect religious people who evangelize. I expect them to evangelize. If they've got information which they truly believe will save others from eternal torment then they bloody well better not keep it to themselves. If they aren't out trying to communicate their message as clearly as possible, if they aren't answering questions and calmly explaining, then do they really believe it? And if they do really believe it, why are those sorts being selfish about it?'

Stanley, I've read your posts here and elsewhere and, to be honest, I don't get the impression that you're trying very hard to communicate the saving facts of your faith. Seriously, and with respect, I find that you seem to be either or both trying to piss people off and/or trying to make it clear that you're planning on an eternity in the bosom of Abraham with a bottomless bowl of popcorn while you watch the rest of us turn pink in Satan's hot-tub.

So, is Chrislam or whatever you call your religion something that you feel the need to share with us? Or are you just bragging about your ticket and getting a few shots in at us before the big train pulls out?

I sadly get the impression that the truth is the latter. If it's not, then why do you start conversations with what seems to be the express purpose of putting people down, dismissing their posts, and, in short, shutting down discussion before it begins?

In other words, troll-like behaviour.


>>Can evolutionists tell me when man decided to cover his/her private parts and why?<<

Who is this man that has male and female genitals? I'm surprised to be honest, I would have thought findamentalism was agin intersex.

Why are we so hung up on trying to use Darwinism to explain a sociological development anyway? Is the way that societies and social norms evolve actually proof of natural selection, or are we letting Stanley's fixation with preaching his faith and decrying Darwin force us into using something that's not entirely applicable?

Surely the question isn't "when did monkeys evolve knickers", but "is human modesty evolved behaviour in a Darwinian sense as opposed to developed behaviour in a societal sense?"

In fact you are right. As said by someone already this thread is just here so Stanley can have a laugh at how stupid and uneducated everyone else is. Being in this forum alone is a try to do it, because hey: what kind of people do you expect being on a page created by DNA? Sometimes I even wonder whether he's just pretending. Whether he thought 'oh, if I would be like this and that I could annoy people'.
On the other hand I guess there really *are* people like him and he may actually be the way he seems to be.

Well Stanley, if closing your eyes at the world around you makes you happy please do that.
Evolution is nothing that happened millions of years ago, we're in it, and it will go on. You can actually watch evolution going on even if you leave out the part where humans became humans and were no apes anymore, if you look at more recent stages.
Or do you think God buried all those funny skeletons to test our believes?

As said above, religious books are rulebooks. They say do this and don't do this, so living togther with others doesn't get you too many problems. Even the Vatican already said that some parts may be not exactly true but rather symbolic. I think the Adam and Eve thing was one of these... but then of course the Pope is far too soft these days and in the end will burn with all these evolutionarist sinners, I know... I know you will now tell me about the church being bad anyhow etc pp
You know, the Catholic Church even aknowledged, that the wold is not flat and that all the planets and stars are not turning around it... do you? Maybe you now say that that is something totally different. Is it?

I am sorry, I know it doesn't make sense to tell you all this because you do not want to learn anyhow. You will just close your eyes again. But I am young and still enthusiastic so please forgive me.


'Why are we so hung up on trying to use Darwinism to explain a sociological development anyway?'

In a way you are right here, but as Stanley believes there has not been a sociologival developement either, because god gave Adam and Eve the rules and nothing had to be developed it doesn't make much difference.
It's interesting that Stanley believes in Adam and Eve while he says he doesn't believe the things in the old testament as they are corrupted.
The explainations I gave earlier in fact have nothing to do with evolution as such, I only talked about moving to colder regions of the world and about using clothes to show your belonging to groups or to show your (sexual) power.
Not sure whether anyone listened.

>>
Surely the question isn't "when did monkeys evolve knickers", but "is human modesty evolved behaviour in a Darwinian sense as opposed to developed behaviour in a societal sense?"
<<

Quite agree Psycorp. I tend to think it's sociological, but it'd be interesting to consider the evolutionary advantage of sexual modesty. Possibly there are advantages for animals that function in tribal groups eg maybe it gives females more choice in reproducing?

But really I'm just speculating out of boredom. It's perfectly obvious that modesty isn't inherent in humans only in some cultures, and we can see some commonalities in those cultures eg religious fundamentalism, and oppression of women.

I have another speculation for you:
If you make your women wear clothes other men are not so atracted by their sexual parts and you can be more certain that their children are yours.
I'm sure that this reason is right in a way but no idea whether it was one of the first resons.

Right,

Having done a google search, I found this : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3142488.stm

So, well and truly wide of the mark with the 10,000 years I thought earlier!

As to your question Stanley, "When did man decide out of the blue to start wearing clothes for modesty" - The simple answer is... they didn't.

Pull your head out of the sand, and try to understand this concept - clothes happened for more than 1 reason. The same way as more than 1 person invented the wheel, or both the greeks and romans inveted cement. Things don't happen for just 1 reason everywhere.

As for the morality line - Utter, utter cobblers. Look, yes, that's take an actual look, without your giant sky-fairy glasses on, at the range of societies throughout the world.
Do you seriously think that they all appeared at the same time? with the same morality?
How do you explain the divergence of (for example) the Aztecs and the Egyptians? Or the tribes of Australia?

Stanley, you opened your thread with a reference to Star Trek and then you said

<>

I hate to break it to you old chap, but Scotty wasn't God.

He does sound kinda like God though as all men know that God was Scottish.

It was briefly touche don earlier, but while reading the backlog I've been niggled at by this thought at the back of my mind...

When we started carrying things, we started needing somewhere to put things so we could also use or hands...

Perhaps the first clothing was a belt for hanging tools from or keeping certain things close? And perhaps this was combined with social awareness (There's always a few people who start trying to influence others, and why not with things like clothing?)

Modesty is, I think, an odd concept (in terms of the physical body). What *is* modesty? Are we not taught it, fairly unnaturally, by our parents and peers? So it's a bad habit. Where it came from? Well, I reckon a mix of the social and cultural ideas discussed earlier. When? I suspect around the same time as more people were wearing clothing for practical reasons... Perhaps a slight lag but not much!

On your point, Robyn, the Ice Man was found wearing, among other things, the equivalent of a fanny-pack, a belt which was basically a leather tube in which he carried various small objects.

So tool use and or personal object carrying/recognition certainly had some bearing on early humans wearing *something* then?

Of course, when necessity for practical, physical use became important for sociability is another matter entirely...

Is that good enough for you, Stanley? We've seperated clothing from morality. *dusts off hands*. Anything else?

(of course, the Ice Man lived in what are pretty much modern times in the span of Human history, about 3300 B.C.E. [or, perhaps, just 7 centuries after the creation, by fundamentalist reckoning])

I still cant see clothing being invented for moral reasons... Early humans had a *little* bit more to worry about than whether they were being immodest (which is, of course, relative anyway).

I have heard some theories which suggest clothing may have been more important (disregarding practical reasons for wearing clothes) when people started engaging in activities whch could be considered religious (i.e. burials of the dead and so on) and not so much out of what we in the western world would call modesty now but out of fears of the unknown, protection of genitalia etc... All of which still hinges on an understanding of reproductive organs, their uses, and also what's considered sexual according to each society/culture.

Stan needs to define 'private parts'.

I mean, consider the possibilities: genitalia, ankles, back of the neck, cleavage of the bust, underside of the breast, nipples, navel, coin-slot, hip, back of the knee, hair of the head, eyes -- these are just a few of the body parts that societies have covered up (notice they are virtually all women's bits that have to be covered) in the name of modesty. Did the first simians to become modest fashion burkhas out of animal skin?

What were the original 'private parts' Stan, and on what evidence to you base your determination?

When I was in India, we were advised to keep upper arms covered, but waist and stomach are not considered erotic and are often left uncovered... (not that I did, I was 11 for a start and I've never been skinny).

I'm just rereading a text from uni, it's quite philosophical but may be interesting for this discussion.
There was talk about 'private parts'..
The text states that enthymologically private and property are related, so there of course has to be a sense of ownership. It is said that in nomadic hunter gatherer societies there is very little property to keep social equality and so prevent people from quarreling. The lack of clothes makes it easier to read people's body language and react accordingly to their condition. Wearing clothes makes your thoughts/feelings less obvious and you are less vulurable. Obstruction creates secrets and therefore individuality and unequality... they say. In opposition to hunter gatherer societies, different social status was better for organising agricultural societies.

This seems to mean that clothing became important when agricultural societies developed, which in fact seems to fit to Stanley's theory that it all started when people had to leave paradise.

except that the genetic study of lice indicates that clothes started being worn tens of thousands of years before agriculture started.

That sounds very speculative.

Well... it certainly is very speculative.
As for the lice: I think they are rather talking about clothes for modesty and not clothes as protection from the weather.