Been going through back episodes of the SGU and I was so happy for you at this episode. And by the way, comments maybe should be disabled on this video seeing as how bent out of shape people can get.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Strange though this may sound, TAM is a pretty backward, conservative event. This is a celebration of 19th century philosophy; of a mindset that has not only become redundant, but actually harmful. No transhumanism = no relevance. Self-proclaimed 'skeptics' tend to be horrible, closed minded people whose primary 'skill' seems to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
@Parapon3ra funny, people willing to change their minds when presented with new/better evidence = close minded. yet blindly believing in things with no evidence, applying no critical thinking, and denying the facts no matter how much evidence there is = open minded to you? also Im not sure you know what transhumanism means. unless your saying thats how Skeptics think in which case Id say whats wrong with transhumanism?
@lapis269 "funny, people willing to change their minds when presented with new/better evidence = close minded."
That's the theory of skepticism, secular humanism etc. The reality is that most of these people are only 'progressive' and 'open minded' when it comes to religion and typical leftist issues like abortion and gay rights. When it comes to things like cryonics, anti-aging research & other transhumanist topics, they're as irrational, dogmatic & closed minded as any bible thumper.
Here's a message Rebecca Watson sent me after banning me from her channel for daring to post a comment she didn't like:
"I'm the best-known skeptic out there, and I have millions of fans. The skeptic movement IS Rebecca Watson. What have you accomplished? No one knows who the fuck you are, so shut your fucking mouth."
So, is this what TAM is all about? People pay for tickets only to have the event hijacked by the likes of Rebecca Watson and her wedding plans? (What is it about this woman and pretending everything she engages in is spontaneous?)
Couldn't sit through this...does it at all mention anything about skepticism? Or, is it just her getting all giddy with herself? Is there a part where the camera pans to all those who rolled their eyes and/or walked out? That part would at least seem watchable.
@0ViewTube0 I know, your life is so hard... 10 minutes of your life were stolen by a wedding that dared to be a feel-good moment for the fans. we could have had a second Science or Fiction in all that time. You poor thing, you should have asked for your money back.
Damn! "Will you marry me" and 2 seconds later they're getting married. It reminds me of some commercial I can't remember it but a girl and a guy meet for the first time and like 20 second later she is meeting the guy parents.
If you're not too busy go to my channel and click on the link If you don't want a summer job or you need extra money to pay for your bills and watch TV while filling easy surveys. Is free just join.
Lovely, but why would a skeptic want a REVERAND to do the ceromony, kind of goes against the idea doesn't it, surely a non-dominational or humanist registrar would be more suitable.
Awesome. Who wouldn't want Adam Savage involved in their wedding? I wonder if this sets some sort of record for time between the proposal and wedding. Probably not, due to drive through wedding chapels, but perhaps the fastest one where either person getting married actually remembers it the next day.
I was there and it was a really sweet moment. Obviously planned ahead of time, sorry to ruin the surprise, but they're a really cute couple and I wish them the best.
The irony is that people who are 'skeptics' and skeptical of things that don't have a direct impact on their life aren't skeptical about something that will have a HUGE impact on their lives, viz.: marriage. For women there are benefits, but there is nothing men get w/ marriage he can't get without it + lose more if it doesn't work out, which it doesn't 50% of the time. Do a search for Tom Leykis & marriage, he explains it best; he's an atheist and a brilliant skeptical mind.
Actually that's not true. I know a lot of skeptics that won't get married because, as you said, they looked into it, and decided against it. Yet there are others who looked into it and decided they DO think its worthwhile.
On a lot of these things, the benefits are very subjective, and carry different weights for different people. Therefore its hard to say that upon analysis, a skeptic is more likely to come down on the side of, or against marriage. It is therefore a non issue.
Despite the technically correct values of the statements below, lets not lose sight of the beauty and joy that is expressed here, it is after all what makes being human worthwhile.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
and these people call themselves skeptics. they'll doubt religion and homeopathy and psychics, but blindly submit to the institution of marriage, which is nothing more than a ritualised version of an antiquated buisness arrangement?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
that's even worse. at least if they were making a mistake out of ignorance, it would be excusable. but this is like a theist biologist, the compatmentalisation, and the sheer hypocrisy, is staggering. like saying "reason is all well and good, AS A HOBBY, but i won't let it get in the way of living regular life as the traditions of my culture dictate". typical moderate cowardice.
I celebrate Christmas but I don't believe Jesus existed. Tradition or not, I enjoy the holiday, as irrational as it is, and spending time with family. I suppose you also think that a skeptic is not allowed to have emotions because it is irrational. Yes?
Why is it hypocritical to celebrate their union? Would it be as hypocritical if they celebrated it in a non-traditional way? It isn't moderate cowardice; you're just an idiot.
Marriage is essentially a contractual union for exclusive sexual and parental relations.
It has its own benefits for individuals, and for societies. A good book to read about this is "the moral animal" by Robert Wright.
The fact that religious organisations and bodies have given themselves administrative control over such unions is because it transfers enormous power to that religious organisation. One reason state marriages are important.
marriage is a contract in which one landowner gives another landowner posession of his daughter so that their estates might be merged. religion ritualised it by pretending humans are monogamous beings, and associating that with morality. it's not moral, it's antiscientific nonsense. you can't force yourself to feel a certain list of emotions towards someone, and restrict yourself from feeling them towards anyone else. it's as insane a religious practice as circumcision.
Humans tend towards monogamy, If you look at species which tend towards multiple parental relationships you will find that it corresponds with sexual dimorphism.
Marriage is where one person signs a contract with another to share parental capacity often exclusively. Before human rights existed, your personal property (including your life, and parental capacity) could be sold by others. This does not invalidate the union itself.
the union invalidates itself, and "parental capacity" has nothing to do with it. the problem is these people beliefe in love, which is not real, and they think that the feelings they have will last, and will not be felt for others. they have not reconsidered that aspect of life, they put faith in it, not even realising that some human cultures do things completely differently.
Polygamy in humans results with multiple brides to one husband. This is because of biological economics. Females contribute more to reproduction than men do. Essentially female contribution of nine moths and one egg are in shorter supply than twenty minutes and a flood of sperm.
This means women are the ones responsible for sexual selection. Which is why men must compete for mates, whereas women have much less trouble in finding sex if they want it.
have you looked at the population of this planet? any real skeptic should have rejected the idea of reproducing biologically long ago. reproduction is not relevant to this topic, because it is basically vestigial at this point.
Now you are attempting to straw man, or perhaps did not understand. I will attempt to make my argument even clearer.
When you repress emotions outburst occur at an increased rate, against when you do not. Polygamous societies lead to sexual repression of men, which leads to increased rates of sexual related violence.
Your argument was that repression, cannot be connected to violent crime. Which is patently wrong.
not only did you just strawman my argument, but yours still does not follow. you are simply stacking unsupported claims on top of other unsupported claims.
My sources include; The moral animal, The world bank dev data, behaviour psychology and evolutionary psychology.
Now please tell me what your sources are so that you can make the claim that women and men have the same behaviour sexually. What experiments or observations have you formed to make such a declaration, it will of course overturn psychology, but don't let that stop you.
for fuck sake, have you ever met a woman? ever? ever? you ever met one who gets in a long term relationship and loses the ability to find other men attractive?
you keep confusing polyamory for polygamy and promiscuity, and you keep talking about reproduction when the point i'm making is about emotional bonds.
Once again, please provide evidence for your claims.
Anecdotes of "I met a woman, she told me this" does not count.
Now, you are sounding like you have engaged in relationships with women whereby they wanted to find other men. Perhaps they did not find you a good partner.
So you do not intend to become a parent, since that is the form of relationship I was talking about. The kind of relationship which is intended to provide and care for children.
Oh, I get it. You are a swinger. You have one partner and both of you engage in multiple recreational sexual relationships?
Well, I agree with part of that statement. Which is one of the problems with the breakdown of the extended family in recent times to the nuclear family.
However, I disagree on the latter part. I think there is such a thing as a partner. It takes two to create children, your are partners in that act, and I tend to think that the father and mother should have equal responsibility in raising the children they have created. A partnership in essence, normative I know.
neomp5, You would make the perfect socialist politician here in NZ! I hate to admit it, but your comment made my blood boil! Emotions are so annoying!
May the flying spaghetti monster touch you with his noodly appendage and rid you of your communist tendencies :) (and hopefully keep do-gooders away from children and their parents!)
I should add, just to somewhat clarify my previous comment that recently here in NZ our government, through new legislation, removed what was left of parental authority. Children here now officially have no boundaries. For all intents and purposes the NZ government now own NZ's children. I, for one, will never have any children while I live in NZ. The studies have been done. The psychology is known. This is not good for children or society as a whole. R.I.P. dear common sense.
Now before you rattle off that this is a "call to consequence" I will say, of course it is. Because the consequence is exactly what we are discussing.
When we choose if human beings should be allowed to personally elect to enter into legal unions, we are doing so because of what we believe the consequences of these unions would be.
the consequences of such unions are well known. more people being born while others starve, then being deprived of a proper upbringing when the hormonal stupor wears off and the pair split in anger, traumatising the unwanted child. the child grows up, but never matures, and the process repeats.
Put bluntly, I have provided evidence, modelling and hypothesis which are testable. You have provided nothing but assertion, anecdote and your personal feelings. That is not a rational argument.
"monogamy is good because lack of monogamy causes rape and murder because i say it does."
i don't know if you're new to the whole skeptical inquiry thing, even if only as a hobby, but you need to give more than that. your conclusions don't even follow from your arguments.
Which in an open forum when anyone can go back and examine what I have posted is moronic.
Anyone can go back and examine where I quoted my source for the rates of rape, violence crime and similar as The World Bank Development Database, gender stats.
I have provided my sources, I have also provided basis in evolutionary psycology, behaviour psychology and direct observation which back up my claims.
You can only say "if I were a woman, I would feel X"
I always find that a good piece of advice for sceptics would be to increase the level of scepticism they applied to things they want to believe.
For example you want to believe you are right in your assumption that a human society where you can have multiple sexual partners is either the best trend, or has a favourable output.
Again, I recommend "the moral animal" the Richard Dawkins website will sell you a copy.
So, what would be the effect upon society of a reduction in the supply of women to men due to multiple women selecting individual men?
Well we do not need to imagine, we can examine both past and present polygamous societies, you tend to find men becoming sexually repressed, and often violent. The occurrence of rape and violent crime increases.
I would even contend that the idea that women must cover themselves or risk rape occurring in polygamous societies is not coincidental.
of course it's not coincidental, there's no correlation. christian culture has endorsed monogamy for centuries, but that idea still exists. lots of cultures which understand monogamy to be absurd.
you're also basing all this on the idea of the woman being monogamous and the man not.
Sorry, I suggest you go to the World Bank Dev Data website and look at the gender stats database.
I think you will find polygamous societies tend towards increased civil unrest, rape and preditory behaviour towards female children.
This includes polygamous sects in the US, why do you think the mormons began marrying children? Because there were just not enough adult women to go around.
or maybe because the stigma against child sexuality is a recent occurrence in christian culture? jesus w. christ, where is your skepticism? you are such a product of your time and place. and you're STILL talking about polygamy instead of polyamory.
women want stable relationships with DIFFERENT MEN than the ones who impregnate them. and still, you're talking about previous human societies, not our current one where reproduction is irrelevant.
don't you understand? the best genetic specimen is the worst father for the children. this is why a woman's instict is sexual attraction to the best physical specimen, and long term relationships with different males entirely.
please, go look up polyamory, you're not understanding it.
Again, please provide evidence that women want men to impregnate them, and then leave them alone while they are pregnant, and a completely different man come along to care for them.
Please provide evidence that men purposefully seek pregnant women to do just this.
Please provide evidence that any human society has these social elements.
they don't anymore, which is why this entire discussion is irrelevant. when we lived in a herd, children were raised collectively and males had no part in that, they werechosen for being the best physical speciment. when society changed so that the male was involved in thechild raising process, there was a conflicting need to find a good mate, and to find a good father. monogamy messes with that, and makes marital infidelity inevitable. but we don't live in that society anymore.
we live in a society where reproduction HINDERS our survival, sex is surely for pleasure, and our emotional relationships are massively complex. you will have people you connect with emotionally, people you connect with intellectually, people you find sexually appealing, and a billion other such categories and subcategories, and in varying combinations. rarely will all those things be there, but not rare enough that you'll only find one.
Ah, I understand your position now. You are not talking about a relationship for the creation and care of children.
Well that is what I am stating is the purpose of marriage as a union, and even that doesn't necessitate sexual exclusivity, but only an agreed upon sharing of parental resources and responsibility.
that's not what marriage is for. it never was. marriage was a buisness agreement, then became associated with the myth of "love". THAT is the myth these skepticism-enthusiasts have bought into.
Men do not want relationships with pregnant women, since they cannot impregnate them. Natural selection has made men not want relationships which doesn't result in reproductive success.
Now, you have made a claim that women want to be made pregnant by one man, who then leaves them to go impregnate other women, while another man comes in to care for them while pregnant, and then makes them pregnant again.
Religions have claimed control of the administration of these unions, these unions did not arise from religions.
These unions rose from people wanting to legally form a union for reproductive and parental purposes, which is clear when you notice how many old laws claim that impotence is an invalidation of marriage.
Again, I recommend "The moral animal" by Robert Wright, which explains genetic and reproductively driven morality and forwards an argument in favour of marriage (SB>SC)
We both share the strong commitment fo science, which is why I think you should perform the research into the sciences of human behaviour; sociology, evolutionary psychology and economics.
Societies which practice polygamy may fare better genetically however rape and other violence are more common.
that's backwards reasoning, conclusion before investigation. polygamy is no better, it's stil the same process, except where one gender has the right to build a collection, while the other is still limited to one. i'm talking about polyamory. you can't force emotions, and you can't categorise and label the way you feel about people, sexual or otherwise. doing so is to deny the way your brain and body work, just to fit a religious ideal.
No, but you can measure behaviour caused by emotions. I am guessing you are a man, which is why you are driven to desire multiple partners.
You want to have multiple partners because genetically you are driven to do so. The benefit to males reproductively of finding multiple mates is much greater than it is for women, who's genetic benefit is to find one mate and get them to stick around and care for their children.
This is confirmed when you analyse behavioural psychology.
you are still talking about sex and reproduction. i am not. even if i were, women also have the desire to seek multiple partners. the natural thing for a human woman to do is to mate with the ideal genetic specimen and then have nothing to do with him. another male must be involved in the child raising process. but since reproduction is vistigial at this point in time, it is not relevant.
"women also have the desire to seek multiple partners"
Sorry contradicted by behavioural psychology, evolutionary psychology, direct observation, and sexual selection.
Women after having sex with an individual partner find a much stronger emotional attachment, because the greatest benefit to their genes is to have a father to assist their children. The benefit exceeds that of multiple partners.
Projecting your feelings as a man onto women and backing up with assertion is not science.
my point exactly. the greatest benefit to their genes is to have one male be the sperm donor, and another assist in rasing the offspring. but for what must be the fourth fucking time, we are not talking about reproduction. we are talking about modern human beings on an overpopulated planet where women's sexual behavior is no longer being dictated by men in much of the world.
Evolutionary psychology is what determines how human morality has been formed you IDIOT.
it is a fucking explaination of why women do not think or behave in the same way as you. It is evident that you are unable to grasp the idea that not everyone has the same psychology as you.
HAhaha that is awesome! My brother got married just the other week. And after the crap that he went through i recon this is has to be the most awesome wedding ever!
i don't know. i feel that way. no need for church but. feels like too simple and un respected for the moment supposed to be maybe the biggest day in your life. and no one was even ready? did they eat that cake? cut by a pocket knife from somebody. and they had no ring too? i guess it wasn't planned. but . i don't know. could be maybe OK for some anyway. but if it was me. i want my wedding just a bit more series. that's what i just mean. not to be negative. :)
fair enough. i was arguing with some people last night about marriage. if i ever get married we'll just drop $500 on beer and bean and cheese tacos and rock out at home. i don't think marriage is that big of a deal. but that's me. :) cool.
Got it. But I was using the term shot gun more to signify the urgency, (non-pregnancy related, thus without the shot gun) and the speed with which it was all done. The time gap between 'will you marry me' and actually getting married is so abnormally low it makes me feel weird. All the prep work, the sense of anticipation, the fatigue, the family politics all that is expected and missing. Makes it look like kids playing a game. I hope they have a real proper wedding later on.
I just got up to this SGU episode today it brought a tear to my eye, shame it didn't lat very long.
DirkDigDuggler 5 months ago
Who no surprise divorce proceedings at TAM9?
qarnos 6 months ago
@jamienprice
Yes, it was scripted; she had full knowledge. Did you really expect anything less from an attention whore of this caliber?
qarnos 6 months ago
Been going through back episodes of the SGU and I was so happy for you at this episode. And by the way, comments maybe should be disabled on this video seeing as how bent out of shape people can get.
Giildy 7 months ago
I hope she got a coffee maker as a wedding gift.
DerSchnurrbart 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Can't believe this is the bitch who made a huge issue of some dude who invited her for coffee. UGLY.. whoa!
9886635574 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@9886635574
I was glad to hear Skid divorced the ugly whore !!!
ratm2112 7 months ago
@ratm2112 wow..you're an a-hole...
GenevaRob72 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Strange though this may sound, TAM is a pretty backward, conservative event. This is a celebration of 19th century philosophy; of a mindset that has not only become redundant, but actually harmful. No transhumanism = no relevance. Self-proclaimed 'skeptics' tend to be horrible, closed minded people whose primary 'skill' seems to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Parapon3ra 8 months ago
@Parapon3ra funny, people willing to change their minds when presented with new/better evidence = close minded. yet blindly believing in things with no evidence, applying no critical thinking, and denying the facts no matter how much evidence there is = open minded to you? also Im not sure you know what transhumanism means. unless your saying thats how Skeptics think in which case Id say whats wrong with transhumanism?
lapis269 4 months ago in playlist More videos from JamesRandiFoundation
@lapis269 "funny, people willing to change their minds when presented with new/better evidence = close minded."
That's the theory of skepticism, secular humanism etc. The reality is that most of these people are only 'progressive' and 'open minded' when it comes to religion and typical leftist issues like abortion and gay rights. When it comes to things like cryonics, anti-aging research & other transhumanist topics, they're as irrational, dogmatic & closed minded as any bible thumper.
Parapon3ra 3 months ago
Fuck yea George Hrab!! The icing on the cake of perhaps one of the awesome videos I've ever seen. Absolutely wonderful!
Geekus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here's a message Rebecca Watson sent me after banning me from her channel for daring to post a comment she didn't like:
"I'm the best-known skeptic out there, and I have millions of fans. The skeptic movement IS Rebecca Watson. What have you accomplished? No one knows who the fuck you are, so shut your fucking mouth."
What a classy woman.
xxOTAKUxxKING 1 year ago
So, is this what TAM is all about? People pay for tickets only to have the event hijacked by the likes of Rebecca Watson and her wedding plans? (What is it about this woman and pretending everything she engages in is spontaneous?)
Couldn't sit through this...does it at all mention anything about skepticism? Or, is it just her getting all giddy with herself? Is there a part where the camera pans to all those who rolled their eyes and/or walked out? That part would at least seem watchable.
0ViewTube0 1 year ago
@0ViewTube0 I know, your life is so hard... 10 minutes of your life were stolen by a wedding that dared to be a feel-good moment for the fans. we could have had a second Science or Fiction in all that time. You poor thing, you should have asked for your money back.
SHUT up.
KMallinson 11 months ago
All the good ones are taken.. boohoo. But anyway congo chaps
vikramkrishnan 1 year ago
I found it interesting that the first thing she asked for was a "reverend" and not a justice of the peace. Hum?!?!?
dwilford78 2 years ago
congratulations kids...
dewgy32 2 years ago
Wow, well I was late to the party...
Congrats to Rebecca and Sid. Now 15,000 ppl have seen your wedding :)
tashage 2 years ago
Nerd wedding :) Congratulations from a long time SGU fan!
vladtheeditor 2 years ago
pre-nep?
godfree2canada 2 years ago
Her crazy stunned laugh is the best.
sennatrem 2 years ago
dashing the hopes of thousands (if not millions) of skeptical nerds worldwide!
saveourskyline 2 years ago 6
Yeah, but I personally think she's cuter.
gotilk 2 years ago
Was that the dude from Mythbusters who had the rings?
scottcmu 2 years ago 2
"
Was that the dude from Mythbusters who had the rings?"
_
Yes. Adam Savage.
D34dH053 2 years ago 5
@scottcmu Adam Savage, that's him :)
tashage 2 years ago
I would have thought that trying to find a reverend at a sceptics convention would be like trying to find a gay dude at a ku klux klan rally.
GavinJ06 2 years ago
; awesome
Forkboy193 2 years ago
Congratulations, cute couple. You guys are awesome!
MrIvenson 2 years ago
Comment removed
whovian1971 2 years ago
I'm heartbroken!
godbecomeanimal 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Damn! "Will you marry me" and 2 seconds later they're getting married. It reminds me of some commercial I can't remember it but a girl and a guy meet for the first time and like 20 second later she is meeting the guy parents.
If you're not too busy go to my channel and click on the link If you don't want a summer job or you need extra money to pay for your bills and watch TV while filling easy surveys. Is free just join.
04ray25number2 2 years ago
Quite possibly the most adorable thing I've ever seen. Congrats!
xEtherealityx 2 years ago
Lovely, but why would a skeptic want a REVERAND to do the ceromony, kind of goes against the idea doesn't it, surely a non-dominational or humanist registrar would be more suitable.
DARRBEV 2 years ago
I meant non-denominational
DARRBEV 2 years ago
Yeah, because all skeptics are 100% killjoys. "Is there a humanist registrar in the audience?"
There is such a thing as tradition, and not all skeptics are stuffy gits. Being a skeptic is a mindset, not a rigid set of rules.
Wilm0chimp 2 years ago 10
Awseome. best vid on youtube ever. Congrats
CosmicBalls 2 years ago
Congratulations! Awesome and amazing ceremony. Hope to see more of Rebecca in Europe now, there will never be enough Skepchicks here!
08armada 2 years ago
He could do better.
csxtrainwreck 2 years ago
That's an ugly dress. But congrats =D
Sepharite 2 years ago
Wow, congratulations to the new couple! Wish I'd had the cash to make it out to TAM7, perhaps next time...
CoolGuy23423 2 years ago
Wow - awesome! Now have lots of sceptical babies!
sevlevboss 2 years ago 2
Great stuff! A lot of broken hearted sgu fans I would imagine!!!! ;-)
Xrakes 2 years ago
Can imagine a lot of broken hearts!
JPPT1974 2 years ago
Hey! I'm skeptical of that ring bearer. Those rings may be made out of some urban legend.
jcchurch 2 years ago 3
YAY! Rebecca rocks. Congrats!
Mams31383 2 years ago
Congratulations Rebecca and Sid!!! That was beautiful!
AmeAnaan 2 years ago
Amazing vid, thanks for sharing.
Congratulations!
Rebecca, will you be staying with SGU?
murdocha 2 years ago
I laughed. I cried. Grats Rebeccas and Sid, and thanks for sharing!
garyoster 2 years ago
Congrats!
NecieB 2 years ago
Fantastic!
What a beautiful way to share the moment. Thank you both!
Cheers,
B
barbshaw1 2 years ago
afs- don't be a dick.
beautifulspam 2 years ago
Awkward....
darrenkincaid 2 years ago
now she will get a good Rodrigering every night!!!
snusify 2 years ago 2
LOL
tanit 2 years ago
Awesome. Who wouldn't want Adam Savage involved in their wedding? I wonder if this sets some sort of record for time between the proposal and wedding. Probably not, due to drive through wedding chapels, but perhaps the fastest one where either person getting married actually remembers it the next day.
privatemochi 2 years ago
I don't know who either of those people are.
Aslapacrosstheface 2 years ago
Congrats Rebecca and Sid!
TiktaalikRoseae 2 years ago 3
I was there and it was a really sweet moment. Obviously planned ahead of time, sorry to ruin the surprise, but they're a really cute couple and I wish them the best.
dominictemple 2 years ago 3
Congratulations, you crazy kids!
strubinator 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Marriage - another tool to control you.
kageromaru 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The irony is that people who are 'skeptics' and skeptical of things that don't have a direct impact on their life aren't skeptical about something that will have a HUGE impact on their lives, viz.: marriage. For women there are benefits, but there is nothing men get w/ marriage he can't get without it + lose more if it doesn't work out, which it doesn't 50% of the time. Do a search for Tom Leykis & marriage, he explains it best; he's an atheist and a brilliant skeptical mind.
komoru 2 years ago
Actually that's not true. I know a lot of skeptics that won't get married because, as you said, they looked into it, and decided against it. Yet there are others who looked into it and decided they DO think its worthwhile.
On a lot of these things, the benefits are very subjective, and carry different weights for different people. Therefore its hard to say that upon analysis, a skeptic is more likely to come down on the side of, or against marriage. It is therefore a non issue.
Brettah31 2 years ago 3
Great stuff :D Congratulations to them! It's cool that they got Adam Savage to bring the rings in \o/
SpeedFreakNO 2 years ago
How sweet is that...
Yithmas 2 years ago
MythBusters Guy brought out the rings!!! hahahaha!!!
CaptChrisT 2 years ago
Despite the technically correct values of the statements below, lets not lose sight of the beauty and joy that is expressed here, it is after all what makes being human worthwhile.
Massive Congratulations Sid and Rebecca!
satchk 2 years ago
This shows that being logical doesn't mean you can't be romantic. Not all sceptics are cold calculating robots.
vicepresidentfru1tly 2 years ago
And WHERE did Adam Savage come from? He was like a ninja!
That just makes it several times more amazing!
ArtsySiridean 2 years ago
Amazing! :D
ArtsySiridean 2 years ago
This made me smile.
decojuicer 2 years ago
congrats guys!!
TheUnmaskedMagician 2 years ago
she was waaaaay too non-chalant about the whole thing.
rj12124 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
and these people call themselves skeptics. they'll doubt religion and homeopathy and psychics, but blindly submit to the institution of marriage, which is nothing more than a ritualised version of an antiquated buisness arrangement?
neomp5 2 years ago
They are probably well aware of what they are submitting to.
diin2live 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
that's even worse. at least if they were making a mistake out of ignorance, it would be excusable. but this is like a theist biologist, the compatmentalisation, and the sheer hypocrisy, is staggering. like saying "reason is all well and good, AS A HOBBY, but i won't let it get in the way of living regular life as the traditions of my culture dictate". typical moderate cowardice.
neomp5 2 years ago
i'd bet fucking money that their next step it to have biological children
SKEPTICISM IS ONLY USEFUL IF YOU ACTUALLY APPLY IT TO YOUR LIFE!
neomp5 2 years ago
I celebrate Christmas but I don't believe Jesus existed. Tradition or not, I enjoy the holiday, as irrational as it is, and spending time with family. I suppose you also think that a skeptic is not allowed to have emotions because it is irrational. Yes?
Why is it hypocritical to celebrate their union? Would it be as hypocritical if they celebrated it in a non-traditional way? It isn't moderate cowardice; you're just an idiot.
diin2live 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
so just because of tradition, you choose to neglect your family for 364 days of the year?
neomp5 2 years ago
Marriage is essentially a contractual union for exclusive sexual and parental relations.
It has its own benefits for individuals, and for societies. A good book to read about this is "the moral animal" by Robert Wright.
The fact that religious organisations and bodies have given themselves administrative control over such unions is because it transfers enormous power to that religious organisation. One reason state marriages are important.
Xorinite 2 years ago 4
marriage is a contract in which one landowner gives another landowner posession of his daughter so that their estates might be merged. religion ritualised it by pretending humans are monogamous beings, and associating that with morality. it's not moral, it's antiscientific nonsense. you can't force yourself to feel a certain list of emotions towards someone, and restrict yourself from feeling them towards anyone else. it's as insane a religious practice as circumcision.
neomp5 2 years ago
"pretending humans are monogamous beings"
Humans tend towards monogamy, If you look at species which tend towards multiple parental relationships you will find that it corresponds with sexual dimorphism.
Marriage is where one person signs a contract with another to share parental capacity often exclusively. Before human rights existed, your personal property (including your life, and parental capacity) could be sold by others. This does not invalidate the union itself.
Xorinite 2 years ago
the union invalidates itself, and "parental capacity" has nothing to do with it. the problem is these people beliefe in love, which is not real, and they think that the feelings they have will last, and will not be felt for others. they have not reconsidered that aspect of life, they put faith in it, not even realising that some human cultures do things completely differently.
neomp5 2 years ago
Polygamy in humans results with multiple brides to one husband. This is because of biological economics. Females contribute more to reproduction than men do. Essentially female contribution of nine moths and one egg are in shorter supply than twenty minutes and a flood of sperm.
This means women are the ones responsible for sexual selection. Which is why men must compete for mates, whereas women have much less trouble in finding sex if they want it.
Xorinite 2 years ago 2
have you looked at the population of this planet? any real skeptic should have rejected the idea of reproducing biologically long ago. reproduction is not relevant to this topic, because it is basically vestigial at this point.
neomp5 2 years ago
No, reproduction is valid. Since reproduction is the basis for evolution of everything, including human morality.
Really this is a simple case of what society do you want to live in, what is best for you, your children, equality and so on.
A society which tends more towards violence, rape, civil unrest and sexual repression which is the one which you advocate I do not find preferable.
Xorinite 2 years ago 2
which is it, rape or repression? make up your mind. then, try making an argument based on something more than just assertion.
neomp5 2 years ago
It is repression, leading to violent sexual outbursts; rape. The two are not exclusive, by consequential
Your attempt to assert that repression of emotions doesn't cause violent outbursts is shown to be wrong in all psychology.
Xorinite 2 years ago
outburts are exceptional events, that's not what you're arguing.
neomp5 2 years ago
Now you are attempting to straw man, or perhaps did not understand. I will attempt to make my argument even clearer.
When you repress emotions outburst occur at an increased rate, against when you do not. Polygamous societies lead to sexual repression of men, which leads to increased rates of sexual related violence.
Your argument was that repression, cannot be connected to violent crime. Which is patently wrong.
Xorinite 2 years ago
not only did you just strawman my argument, but yours still does not follow. you are simply stacking unsupported claims on top of other unsupported claims.
neomp5 2 years ago
I will repeat, since you are now lying overtly;
My sources include; The moral animal, The world bank dev data, behaviour psychology and evolutionary psychology.
Now please tell me what your sources are so that you can make the claim that women and men have the same behaviour sexually. What experiments or observations have you formed to make such a declaration, it will of course overturn psychology, but don't let that stop you.
Xorinite 2 years ago
for fuck sake, have you ever met a woman? ever? ever? you ever met one who gets in a long term relationship and loses the ability to find other men attractive?
you keep confusing polyamory for polygamy and promiscuity, and you keep talking about reproduction when the point i'm making is about emotional bonds.
neomp5 2 years ago
Once again, please provide evidence for your claims.
Anecdotes of "I met a woman, she told me this" does not count.
Now, you are sounding like you have engaged in relationships with women whereby they wanted to find other men. Perhaps they did not find you a good partner.
Xorinite 2 years ago 2
i have not engaged in relationships with women in the way you define them, because i don't submit to such insane beliefs.
neomp5 2 years ago
So you do not intend to become a parent, since that is the form of relationship I was talking about. The kind of relationship which is intended to provide and care for children.
Oh, I get it. You are a swinger. You have one partner and both of you engage in multiple recreational sexual relationships?
Would that be correct?
Xorinite 2 years ago
child raising should be done by a community, not a pair. there's no such thing as a "partner", people do not feel emotions exclusively.
neomp5 2 years ago
Well, I agree with part of that statement. Which is one of the problems with the breakdown of the extended family in recent times to the nuclear family.
However, I disagree on the latter part. I think there is such a thing as a partner. It takes two to create children, your are partners in that act, and I tend to think that the father and mother should have equal responsibility in raising the children they have created. A partnership in essence, normative I know.
Xorinite 2 years ago
neomp5, You would make the perfect socialist politician here in NZ! I hate to admit it, but your comment made my blood boil! Emotions are so annoying!
May the flying spaghetti monster touch you with his noodly appendage and rid you of your communist tendencies :) (and hopefully keep do-gooders away from children and their parents!)
VirgilFoxMusic 2 years ago
I should add, just to somewhat clarify my previous comment that recently here in NZ our government, through new legislation, removed what was left of parental authority. Children here now officially have no boundaries. For all intents and purposes the NZ government now own NZ's children. I, for one, will never have any children while I live in NZ. The studies have been done. The psychology is known. This is not good for children or society as a whole. R.I.P. dear common sense.
VirgilFoxMusic 2 years ago
Now before you rattle off that this is a "call to consequence" I will say, of course it is. Because the consequence is exactly what we are discussing.
When we choose if human beings should be allowed to personally elect to enter into legal unions, we are doing so because of what we believe the consequences of these unions would be.
Xorinite 2 years ago
the consequences of such unions are well known. more people being born while others starve, then being deprived of a proper upbringing when the hormonal stupor wears off and the pair split in anger, traumatising the unwanted child. the child grows up, but never matures, and the process repeats.
neomp5 2 years ago
Now, I will have to ask for your comparative statistics. I have stated my sources, and the research which has been done to come to my conclusions.
Please state your own.
Xorinite 2 years ago
Put bluntly, I have provided evidence, modelling and hypothesis which are testable. You have provided nothing but assertion, anecdote and your personal feelings. That is not a rational argument.
Xorinite 2 years ago
your argument is this:
"monogamy is good because lack of monogamy causes rape and murder because i say it does."
i don't know if you're new to the whole skeptical inquiry thing, even if only as a hobby, but you need to give more than that. your conclusions don't even follow from your arguments.
neomp5 2 years ago
Now you are simply lying.
Which in an open forum when anyone can go back and examine what I have posted is moronic.
Anyone can go back and examine where I quoted my source for the rates of rape, violence crime and similar as The World Bank Development Database, gender stats.
I have provided my sources, I have also provided basis in evolutionary psycology, behaviour psychology and direct observation which back up my claims.
You can only say "if I were a woman, I would feel X"
Xorinite 2 years ago
"any real skeptic"
Would have also been a true scotsman?
I always find that a good piece of advice for sceptics would be to increase the level of scepticism they applied to things they want to believe.
For example you want to believe you are right in your assumption that a human society where you can have multiple sexual partners is either the best trend, or has a favourable output.
Again, I recommend "the moral animal" the Richard Dawkins website will sell you a copy.
Xorinite 2 years ago
So, what would be the effect upon society of a reduction in the supply of women to men due to multiple women selecting individual men?
Well we do not need to imagine, we can examine both past and present polygamous societies, you tend to find men becoming sexually repressed, and often violent. The occurrence of rape and violent crime increases.
I would even contend that the idea that women must cover themselves or risk rape occurring in polygamous societies is not coincidental.
Xorinite 2 years ago
of course it's not coincidental, there's no correlation. christian culture has endorsed monogamy for centuries, but that idea still exists. lots of cultures which understand monogamy to be absurd.
you're also basing all this on the idea of the woman being monogamous and the man not.
neomp5 2 years ago
Sorry, I suggest you go to the World Bank Dev Data website and look at the gender stats database.
I think you will find polygamous societies tend towards increased civil unrest, rape and preditory behaviour towards female children.
This includes polygamous sects in the US, why do you think the mormons began marrying children? Because there were just not enough adult women to go around.
Xorinite 2 years ago
or maybe because the stigma against child sexuality is a recent occurrence in christian culture? jesus w. christ, where is your skepticism? you are such a product of your time and place. and you're STILL talking about polygamy instead of polyamory.
neomp5 2 years ago
Polyamory only has benefits to MEN, the costs to a woman of pregnancy and then the man leaving is much greater than the benefit.
In men the genetic benefit of getting a woman pregnant and then leaving is significant.
This is why you want to have multiple partners, and women want to have stable relationships.
Xorinite 2 years ago
women want stable relationships with DIFFERENT MEN than the ones who impregnate them. and still, you're talking about previous human societies, not our current one where reproduction is irrelevant.
neomp5 2 years ago
don't you understand? the best genetic specimen is the worst father for the children. this is why a woman's instict is sexual attraction to the best physical specimen, and long term relationships with different males entirely.
please, go look up polyamory, you're not understanding it.
neomp5 2 years ago
Again, please provide evidence that women want men to impregnate them, and then leave them alone while they are pregnant, and a completely different man come along to care for them.
Please provide evidence that men purposefully seek pregnant women to do just this.
Please provide evidence that any human society has these social elements.
Xorinite 2 years ago
they don't anymore, which is why this entire discussion is irrelevant. when we lived in a herd, children were raised collectively and males had no part in that, they werechosen for being the best physical speciment. when society changed so that the male was involved in thechild raising process, there was a conflicting need to find a good mate, and to find a good father. monogamy messes with that, and makes marital infidelity inevitable. but we don't live in that society anymore.
neomp5 2 years ago
we live in a society where reproduction HINDERS our survival, sex is surely for pleasure, and our emotional relationships are massively complex. you will have people you connect with emotionally, people you connect with intellectually, people you find sexually appealing, and a billion other such categories and subcategories, and in varying combinations. rarely will all those things be there, but not rare enough that you'll only find one.
neomp5 2 years ago
Ah, I understand your position now. You are not talking about a relationship for the creation and care of children.
Well that is what I am stating is the purpose of marriage as a union, and even that doesn't necessitate sexual exclusivity, but only an agreed upon sharing of parental resources and responsibility.
Xorinite 2 years ago
that's not what marriage is for. it never was. marriage was a buisness agreement, then became associated with the myth of "love". THAT is the myth these skepticism-enthusiasts have bought into.
neomp5 2 years ago
No, I would have to disagree here. Unless you have some evidence to change my mind.
I think marriage is a response to emotions which have arisen through sexual selection.
Xorinite 2 years ago
Men do not want relationships with pregnant women, since they cannot impregnate them. Natural selection has made men not want relationships which doesn't result in reproductive success.
Now, you have made a claim that women want to be made pregnant by one man, who then leaves them to go impregnate other women, while another man comes in to care for them while pregnant, and then makes them pregnant again.
Please provide evidence for these claims.
Xorinite 2 years ago
Natural selection isn't so obvious when it comes to humans. Society and emotion changes the general rules you laid out.
RhinoAts51 2 years ago
Comment removed
Xorinite 2 years ago
I never claimed it was obvious. I cited a source in evolutionary psychology, The Moral Animal.
It has an extensive bibliography of scientific papers which it sources.
Xorinite 2 years ago
Religions have claimed control of the administration of these unions, these unions did not arise from religions.
These unions rose from people wanting to legally form a union for reproductive and parental purposes, which is clear when you notice how many old laws claim that impotence is an invalidation of marriage.
Xorinite 2 years ago
the same can be said for many other religious traditions. it doesn't make them less stupid.
neomp5 2 years ago
Again, I recommend "The moral animal" by Robert Wright, which explains genetic and reproductively driven morality and forwards an argument in favour of marriage (SB>SC)
We both share the strong commitment fo science, which is why I think you should perform the research into the sciences of human behaviour; sociology, evolutionary psychology and economics.
Societies which practice polygamy may fare better genetically however rape and other violence are more common.
Xorinite 2 years ago
that's backwards reasoning, conclusion before investigation. polygamy is no better, it's stil the same process, except where one gender has the right to build a collection, while the other is still limited to one. i'm talking about polyamory. you can't force emotions, and you can't categorise and label the way you feel about people, sexual or otherwise. doing so is to deny the way your brain and body work, just to fit a religious ideal.
neomp5 2 years ago
i also shouldn't have to inform you that the survival benefit of something is not evidence that it has any truth value.
neomp5 2 years ago
No, but you can measure behaviour caused by emotions. I am guessing you are a man, which is why you are driven to desire multiple partners.
You want to have multiple partners because genetically you are driven to do so. The benefit to males reproductively of finding multiple mates is much greater than it is for women, who's genetic benefit is to find one mate and get them to stick around and care for their children.
This is confirmed when you analyse behavioural psychology.
Xorinite 2 years ago
you are still talking about sex and reproduction. i am not. even if i were, women also have the desire to seek multiple partners. the natural thing for a human woman to do is to mate with the ideal genetic specimen and then have nothing to do with him. another male must be involved in the child raising process. but since reproduction is vistigial at this point in time, it is not relevant.
neomp5 2 years ago
"women also have the desire to seek multiple partners"
Sorry contradicted by behavioural psychology, evolutionary psychology, direct observation, and sexual selection.
Women after having sex with an individual partner find a much stronger emotional attachment, because the greatest benefit to their genes is to have a father to assist their children. The benefit exceeds that of multiple partners.
Projecting your feelings as a man onto women and backing up with assertion is not science.
Xorinite 2 years ago
my point exactly. the greatest benefit to their genes is to have one male be the sperm donor, and another assist in rasing the offspring. but for what must be the fourth fucking time, we are not talking about reproduction. we are talking about modern human beings on an overpopulated planet where women's sexual behavior is no longer being dictated by men in much of the world.
neomp5 2 years ago
Evolutionary psychology is what determines how human morality has been formed you IDIOT.
it is a fucking explaination of why women do not think or behave in the same way as you. It is evident that you are unable to grasp the idea that not everyone has the same psychology as you.
That is called projection.
Xorinite 2 years ago
have you ever met a woman?
neomp5 2 years ago
Sad day. But cute.
todaypompeii 2 years ago
Cute yes, but why sad?
boobmcnutt 2 years ago
Not contrived or gimmicky whatsoever.
Bueller007 2 years ago
★★★★★
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Damn you, Sid Rodriguez! Damn you!
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
Oh, she said "without." Curious that I should mishear it that way.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
"I'm not gonna get married with all my family here."
You could ask your family to leave.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
oh god damn thats akward.
pippigladstone 2 years ago
I thought so too.
diin2live 2 years ago
Mazel tov, kids!
mbutchin 2 years ago
did they even know each other?
xLightFilmsx 2 years ago
I would assume they do since he said they were in a long distance relationship.
DontEatRawHagis 2 years ago
CONGRATS Rebecca and Sid !!!!
also, dang that microphone had a narrow beam!
Paxmax 2 years ago
That is the most romantic thing that ever happened at TAM. Bravo!
-jcr
NSResponder 2 years ago
HAhaha that is awesome! My brother got married just the other week. And after the crap that he went through i recon this is has to be the most awesome wedding ever!
waruikazi 2 years ago
um. embarrassing. what the :S why like this ?
saleall 2 years ago
why not?
benson471 2 years ago
i don't know. i feel that way. no need for church but. feels like too simple and un respected for the moment supposed to be maybe the biggest day in your life. and no one was even ready? did they eat that cake? cut by a pocket knife from somebody. and they had no ring too? i guess it wasn't planned. but . i don't know. could be maybe OK for some anyway. but if it was me. i want my wedding just a bit more series. that's what i just mean. not to be negative. :)
saleall 2 years ago 2
fair enough. i was arguing with some people last night about marriage. if i ever get married we'll just drop $500 on beer and bean and cheese tacos and rock out at home. i don't think marriage is that big of a deal. but that's me. :) cool.
benson471 2 years ago 2
ahah.NICE :) everyone have they own way about how the marriage will be done. :)
saleall 2 years ago
Where's Matt Dillahunty?
AtheistChase 2 years ago
baking the cake maybe ? or driving the limo
synsei1 2 years ago
LOL, great
hector3222 2 years ago
Shot gun wedding, without the shot gun. Feels a bit weird and silly. Like kids playing a silly game. Or grown ups pretending to be kids.
82abhilash 2 years ago
So, just a wedding?
lehman 2 years ago
I do not understand what you mean.
82abhilash 2 years ago
You said "Shot gun wedding, without the shot gun."
So a shotgun wedding without the shotgun part is just a wedding.
And the term "shotgun wedding" has to do with the woman getting pregnant, thus the man is forced they're forced to marry.
lehman 2 years ago
Got it. But I was using the term shot gun more to signify the urgency, (non-pregnancy related, thus without the shot gun) and the speed with which it was all done. The time gap between 'will you marry me' and actually getting married is so abnormally low it makes me feel weird. All the prep work, the sense of anticipation, the fatigue, the family politics all that is expected and missing. Makes it look like kids playing a game. I hope they have a real proper wedding later on.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Congratulations Sid and Rebecca!
xXMoshtradamusXx 2 years ago
talk about the shortest engagement ever lol. Congrats Rebecca :)
k9lionheart 2 years ago 2
Oh dear. This isn't the kind of thing I was hoping for from TAM. Good luck you guys but sheesh, this should have been done in private.
LucretiaBorgia 2 years ago
The Amaz!ng Wedding 7! When Atheists love!!!
marcellojun 2 years ago
It's funny how natural Dr. Novella looks during all this, as though he's been through this a million times.
mrbadguysan 2 years ago 2