I seriously wish it was only a few misguided young people who felt this way.

Futures contracts are merely a way for the collective intelligence of the market to translate into hard pricing data. They don't in and of themselves raise prices.

If people did not believe there was a long-term fundamental tightness in world oil supplies, futures contracts would not be higher.

Ned, that's not "proof," it's personal experience. Which is notoriously fallible. We tend to see what we want to see--otherwise known as "confirmation bias." As to your second point, how can one person's words of prayer be a "benefit" and another's be labeled "tyranny?" That doesn't even make sense. In the marketplace of ideas, all words are fair game. I'm taking issue with deceptive claims for the efficacy of prayer. The burden of proof is on the claimant. And it will take much more to shoulder that burden than personal testimonials or wishful thinking.

Hey Kirsten, of course I remember you! Great to hear from you. I'll send you a more detailed reply by email...

The incentives are still set up all wrong for renewables. If you want a market based solution, you have to ensure users of fossil energy are paying the full externalized costs. If that were the case, no one would need to be concerned about saving the planet. (Since fossil fuels are vastly more expensive--estimates of up to $900 per ton of Carbon pollution). And it's not the planet we should be concerned about, it's ourselves. By encouraging the headlong rush to deplete natural capital over the past two centuries, we've set ourselves up for an unprecedented resource crisis. This is a recipe for severe economic stagnation and even potential violence.

More shaming and war-drumming from the feminatheist police. And a little "get in line" medicine for the girls who don't agree. Backed and linked by PZ Myers, of course:
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/becau...

Angel. Yes it does. Thanks for your reasoned comments.

Yes, well said Chloe.

Bailey, first of all I want to say thank you for an extremely balanced conversation. And thank you also for bringing up the point that women pursue sex, too. Of course they do, and that's something which doesn't receive enough attention in all the noise.

Perhaps this is a semantic argument about the word "objectify." To me, there's just no way to look at a woman without seeing the complete package. And I don't think I'm alone. Both men and women are constantly evaluating each other, sizing up their chances. Genitalia are only a part of the attraction. But they're an important part. I think you are saying you agree.

My act of looking at a woman and thinking about how great it would be to get a her in bed might involve fantasies about her breasts, lips, vagina, ass, and everything else. Which doesn't distract me from the intelligent conversation we would hopefully be having. Nor would I hope her thinking about my penis or other attributes would distract her from what I was saying. I would hope there would be a lot of learning about the other person, a lot of brain connection. Because the brain is the sexiest organ of them all. But still that the chemistry and bodily sexual tension would just add to the deliciousness of the conversation.

When I hear the word "objectification" in feminist usage, it makes me think a woman wants people to look at them and completely forget there's any physical attraction or potential sex involved. Which I think is just a killjoy attitude. As a man, I say, think about my body, objectify me, please!

And I agree totally with your point about timing and skill.

Bailey, I know this is a *huge* sticking point for feminists. But I just don't understand how "objectification" is such a big deal. It is acknowledging the obvious. Which that all people are both objectified and instrumental to others in a number of ways, not just sexually. Everyone has endless designs on other people. Politicians use their followers. Businessmen use their workers, people use other people to get information, or favors. Hopefully there's a fair exchange. Problems arise when there is not.

Life is a continuous power exchange. Everything is transactional. So when you say rape is a crime of power, absolutely. I couldn't agree more. But so is theft, in the sense that stealing money or goods from someone reduces their power to act in the world.

And I fully acknowledge that rape is one of the most heinous crimes humans can commit. But it can still be seen as theft--not of a vagina--but as theft of dignity and autonomy. The canard about the hooker is something I would never say. It is not theft of services, because in order for it to be so, the hooker still would have to have consented to the service. I suppose it could be theft of services if she consented and the man refused to pay afterward.

But we're way off target from the original discussion, which was that there needs to be an acknowledgement that to have a vagina is to have something extraordinarily desirable, which men will do all sorts of crazy things to get access to. They will filrt, decieve, cajole, stalk, beg, and even use force. So when a man simply asks once and politely leaves, it's huge progress in an evolutionary and political sense, and something which deserves praise and not scorn. And how would this have gone down differently if Skepchick was actually attracted to the guy? Was he supposed to read her mind?

Final question: Do women really want men to be even more afraid to approach them than some of us already are? I don't think that serves anyone.