Locked thread in the natural science subforum

I honestly feel that locking this thread is a clear sign that personal political biases are being prioritized over objectivity and the neutrality required for a scientific debate:

In his last post on the final page of this thread, moderator shadoworca3 actually crossed a line by resorting to personal insults and using profanity like "bullshit" and "fucking," which frankly has no place in this subforum. Looking back at previous pages, several other users weren't even trying to argue points; they were just throwing out ad hominem attacks and labels without any moderation intervening.

Personally, I’ve made a conscious effort in every single one of my posts to remain as respectful as possible toward those who disagree with me, and I haven't resorted to a single insult. I realize that many of the perspectives I've shared here might not be considered "politically correct," but that shouldn't serve as a barrier to a high-quality discussion, provided we stay within the bounds of scientific discourse. In my view, the thread actually maintained that standard quite well, and I think some truly insightful contributions were made by various members.

Earlier on the first page, moderator Zachary Mendoza2 mentioned that the topic was good and simply cautioned us against veering into politics, which leads me to believe that the decision to shut this down was far too hasty.

I would like to formally ask the moderators of the natural science subforum to reconsider this decision and think about reopening the thread. It clearly has potential; if you feel the conversation is drifting off course in the future, perhaps just step in to steer it back toward the intended direction instead of pulling the plug entirely.

Thanks in advance!

The core premise of your argument—which is essentially the guiding thread for most racist ideologies—is the claim that evolutionary theory (a concept you've incorrectly conflated with Darwinism) necessitates a natural law of discriminating against those deemed "different" or "weaker," which in practice translates to targeting Black people, Jewish people, LGBTQ+ individuals, and women...
I have already attempted to explain to you on two separate occasions within this thread why modern evolutionary theory does not support your position, yet you have chosen to ignore my points entirely, opting instead to turn this discussion into your own personal platform for racism.

How could I possibly permit you to propagate the idea within the Natural Science department that female higher education is the primary driver behind declining birth rates and the supposed crisis of Western civilization?
It would be deeply humiliating to allow my colleagues to witness me permitting such rhetoric, and frankly, I would be too ashamed to look my own children in the eye years from now when they ask why I didn't take a stand against such views.

Ultimately, your thesis is a scientific failure, and quite frankly, it hits a moral low that I had sincerely hoped I wouldn't have to encounter again, let alone be forced to intervene in and issue sanctions against.

If this thread was nothing more than my own personal "racist platform," a "scientific blunder," or some kind of "moral wasteland," then how on earth did it pull in over 4,000 views? How does a single discussion balloon into six full pages with over 100 replies in just twenty days? And why did it stay pinned right at the top of the subforum's front page the entire time?

Doesn't that suggest that most people don't actually view this as hate speech, but rather as something incredibly compelling and relevant? Perhaps there are still folks out there in the field of natural science who recognize that the boundaries of academic discourse have been tightened significantly over the last few decades—a trend that should be deeply concerning to them as well.

Furthermore, if these viewpoints were truly as inflammatory as claimed, how is it that not a single one of my posts was flagged, nor did I receive a single official warning from moderator Frogger?

I would genuinely appreciate an explanation for all of this.

You suggested that homophobia could be viewed as a positive force because it pressures homosexual individuals into marriage and parenthood, supposedly aiding the survival of the species. I suppose one has to wonder about that same homophobia which has driven thousands to suicide and leaves countless people today struggling with deep psychological and physical scars. All those individuals who were lost to suicide or subjected to abuse might have contributed to the survival of our species in many other ways—ways that likely would have yielded a much greater impact than simply churning out children.

Furthermore, you implied that racial segregation had some basis in biology, yet historical fact shows it was merely a product of irrational hatred and backwardness, never actually supported by biological reality. To me, it feels quite absurd that you would try to use the example of melanin to justify a system that inherently results in the stripping of liberties, widespread discontent, harassment, and the racially motivated crimes we still witness today. I honestly think that is "a bit" more severe than the increased risk of Vitamin D deficiency among Black Americans, which is a medical issue easily addressed. Ultimately, equality and the freedom to express sexual orientation—which leads to greater genetic variability—could arguably produce better evolutionary outcomes in the long run than racial segregation ever could.

Then, when I pointed out the obvious fact that gender roles are more flexible now than ever before, and that Western civilization is more advanced than it has ever been, you reached for what seems to be perhaps the greatest conservative cliché in existence—suggesting that historians might eventually point to these very changes as the cause of the downfall of Western civilization.

In my view, your interpretation of evolution is akin to believing that evolution means "survival of the fittest" in a way that grants people a license to commit any act they desire just because they can overpower others. Of course, anyone truly informed knows that evolution isn't really about the survival of the strongest.

The point isn't just about what Ryan Ward2 wrote in his opener—man, seriously, why hasn't he been banned yet? If we're handing out red cards, he should've been kicked off the PZ forums ages ago, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't the only one who deserved a slap on the wrist.
The way this is going makes it look like the topic itself is the problem, when really, we should just be broadening the scope—moving from just Darwinian theory to general scientific theories, and shifting from political correctness to actual political philosophy (or ideologies).

It is impossible to follow every rule perfectly, but that isn't the end of the world. The internet preserves everything, making it easy to seek justice after the fact. Bans and deletions are merely secondary tools. What truly matters is that Ryan Ward2 revealed himself to be a racist, chauvinistic troll and faced public condemnation for it. He won't be posting on PZ anymore, and if he tries, he may find himself unwelcome on any other part of the forum.

The current thread has become garbage and is better off being put out of its misery. It makes sense to have a civil discussion regarding how ideologies impact natural science, but we can do that in a new thread that doesn't start with several pages of trash.

The points I’ve raised here are legitimate scientific hypotheses, and they shouldn't be dismissed just because people find them uncomfortable or want to lecture me on morality. Whether these ideas are ultimately proven right or wrong is a matter for rigorous debate and objective research, which requires us to remain neutral and analytical.

The backlash I've received feels disproportionate—as if I were calling for violence or some kind of public lynching—when, in reality, I am simply applying evolutionary theory to humans. We are part of the biological world, after all, and we are subject to the exact same laws of nature as any other animal.

Humans aren't some special exception to the rule. We descended from LUCA, our entire existence follows the fundamental drive to eat, survive, and reproduce, and we share roughly 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives.

Back in the 19th century, Darwinian theory regarding human evolution from primates likely sounded heretical and deeply shocking to the public, yet history eventually vindicated it as fact.

My conscience is clear, and I'm happy to let time be the ultimate judge of who was right.

Hey everyone,

The sheer arrogance required to censor a moderator who just throws around terms like "anti-scientific trolling" while discrediting the author is honestly beyond belief, especially when they shut down the Science and Ethics thread with such a pseudo-intellectual explanation:

What kind of nonsense is this? The article in Scientific American says this:

It doesn't say anywhere that they killed the bird, and the photo you posted is just anti-scientific trolling. This belongs in a tabloid paper debunking myths, not here.
Lock.

The topic is perfectly legitimate:

Update: A previous version of this post indicated that the moustached kingfisher was later released. The Dodo has confirmed with Dr. Filardi that the bird was collected as a specimen for additional study. This decision to not merely photograph, but to kill the bird, has sparked criticism for what many see as the needless taking of a rare animal's life.

As Marc Bekoff, Professor emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, pointed out in a subsequent op-ed, the killing of animals for the sake of science is an all-too-common practice — one, he argues, which "simply needs to stop."

https://www.thedodo.com/first-photos...366744674.html

For obvious reasons, I’m looking for an apology from the moderator for these accusations, a reversal of the ban for trolling, and for the thread to be reopened.

There seems to be a lot of censorship going on lately, along with people venting their frustrations on other users and shutting down topics that actually deserve a debate.

I can't help but think the moderator would be much more effective if they actually took the time to read the texts thoroughly—unless, of course, there's a language barrier standing in the way.

Sam Watson, that’s neither a working link nor actual text you posted.
You just dropped this:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...-photographed/

shadowpilot6 said:Sam, that’s neither a link nor even the text you thought you posted.
This is what you actually put up:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...-photographed/

The actual link is buried inside that one. I messed up by posting the blog URL instead of the direct source, but does it really matter? We're all just circling the drain here anyway, and honestly, shouldn't the moderator have figured that out on their own, unless they had some reason to go digging through the thread in the first place?

Look, everyone, can we please stop treating me like an idiot, just like you're doing to everyone else here? Since when did you all get the right to discredit me this way? I've provided the links in English, so I'm not sure what part of that isn't clicking for you. 🤷

Here’s more:

The New York Post: http://www.nytimes.com/news/interesting...and-killed-1029832(By the way, that image in the thread header is a clip from the Post, and when I referred to "eminent newspapers," I was being sarcastic—a concept that our resident forum "scientists" clearly aren't equipped to grasp.)
Index: http://www.index.com/news/article/b...o-/847705.aspx

New York Daily: Another Cecil? Researcher for New York museum kills rare bird in name of science, draws outrage from PETA
Daily Mail: American scientist tracks down one of world's rarest birds and then KILLS IT for 'research'

and so on...

I want the moderator to step up. Zachary Mendoza2, why the silence? Why'd you shut the thread down?

I need to edit the post and integrate this statement:

Zachary Mendoza2 said:What kind of nonsense is this? The Scientific American article actually says this:
It doesn't say anywhere that they killed the bird, and that photo you posted is just anti-science trolling. These major American dailies don't belong in a discussion about debunking myths.
Lock.http://www.forum.us/showpost.php?p=55907628&postcount=6

🤣 🤣 What an epic fail. 😁

If you were being sarcastic about those "distinguished newspapers," knowing how low their journalistic standards and ethics actually are, why did you bother posting an excerpt from them in the first place? And why are you citing other outlets like Index, New York Daily, or Daily Mail now?

The matter is under investigation. I suggest you lay low; if this issue is officially raised, an argumentative stance backed by nothing but tabloids will likely result in you being sidelined.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:If you were being sarcastic when you called them "eminent newspapers"—given how much you clearly know about their lack of journalistic integrity and basic literacy—then why bother posting a snippet from them in the first place? And why are you suddenly dragging other outlets like Index, New York Daily, and Daily Fail into this conversation now?

I was reading that article early in the morning when I made a gesture—one that ended up getting the whole thread shut down—to point out how absurd it was to blow something like this out of proportion. I shared another link, which led to a page on The Dodo, a site that actually knows its birds, just to show that they didn't even mention the poor thing being killed. So, maybe I was wrong about that. Maybe I misread the situation. 🤔 You can't exactly read my mind, you know? Honestly, ever since I read that news story, I haven't been able to get it out of my head.

I dropped those links after the thread was locked because I figured people would just use search engines anyway; most of this stuff is pretty easy to verify if you actually bother to look. I’m not one of those people trying to peddle anti-science propaganda—far from it, considering I spend my time studying these things myself, much like what I deal with coming out of my technical and natural science courses—but I have to say, this whole situation with the bird left me feeling pretty shaken. Is it just me, or is this entire topic worth debating on a much deeper level than just the fate of a single bird? In this instance, that bird was essentially an accidental Jan Palach; sure, nothing caught fire, but the poor thing flew right into the path of that scientist.

Look, this whole thing is being looked into, so if I were you, I’d just lay low. If they decide to open a formal inquiry and you start throwing around arguments fueled by nothing but tabloid trash, you're going to find yourself facing a suspension. Is it really worth getting canned over some sensationalist nonsense?

God, I'm pissed off. 🕺 So now I know.

Super interesting. Is this just some tabloid trash or what? Like, is there actually any truth to this?
If it is, why are you guys hitting people with a topic that has such huge implications for debate?
I don't get it.

Alright, I am opening this thread.

It is true that the bird was killed. There is also a discussion on Dr. Filardi's own blog:
A tragic loss for conservation. To kill a bird in the pursuit of research feels fundamentally wrong. It is a heavy price to pay for data.

Both he and his colleagues employ a similar method for public discourse elsewhere:
I am deeply saddened by this news. It is truly heartbreaking.
https://disqus.com/by/hermmays/

Therefore, there is no reason why we shouldn't have this debate here at the EPA. However, please respect the spirit of this forum—we are discussing scientific ethics. If things become too inflammatory, the moderators will step in against those who act with the least ethical conduct.

Smart move. 👍 Thanks.

I honestly can't quite wrap my head around why you didn't just start your own formal complaint thread instead of jumping onto the one started by Ryan Ward2, which was shut down specifically because the underlying racism wasn't sufficiently addressed.
By doing that, you essentially linked your own grievance to his in a way that draws a direct comparison between the two cases.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Alright, kicking things off! Thread is officially open.

It’s facts—the bird is dead. There's even a whole debate going down on Dr. Filardi's own blog about it!
I just read this piece about why I can't stop thinking about that kingfisher, and man, it really hits home. It’s one of those stories that makes you look at the birds in your own backyard a little differently. Sometimes you just get hit by the reality of how fragile everything is.

And his whole crew uses that same kind of public engagement format everywhere else!
I honestly can’t believe we’re even having this conversation again. It’s like people just refuse to learn from history! 🙄 Look, I’m all for progress, but there is a massive line between "advancing our understanding" and just being reckless with lives that can't defend themselves. We saw this happen before, and it’s happening again. When you have researchers out there making huge mistakes under the guise of "science," it’s not just a slip-up—it’s a tragedy. @shadowpilot6 is totally right about how much damage this does to public trust. If we want people to actually care about conservation, we can't be out here killing off the very things we claim to protect! It makes us look like amateurs. We need actual accountability, not just some vague apology after the bird is already gone. Seriously, let's get it together! 🙌✨
https://disqus.com/by/hermmays/

So there’s really no reason we shouldn't be having this debate over at the EPA, too. Just a heads-up though—let's keep the vibe of this sub in mind. We're talking about scientific ethics here, and if things get way too heated, the mods are definitely going to come down hard on anyone acting unethically.

Sam Watson just dropped a super juicy thread, and don't even try telling me it doesn't belong on your PDF!
Every single mod loves that stuff!
Kudos to you guys for getting this back up and running!
There’s always hope!

It is quite acceptable; we occasionally enjoy a bit of friction when things grow tedious. Once those animal rights activists or similar groups show up shouting slogans, the scientists will simply crush them with logic and sarcasm. Their blood pressure will spike to insane levels, they'll resort to typing in all caps and hate speech, and then we can just ban them all.