1. Group Asks for Divine Intervention to Ease Oil Prices

Comment #204222 by Mitchell Gilks on July 4, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Gah. Also, for the record, "god helps those who help themselves" is actually a greek saying. It originates from a story about a man whose cart has gotten stuck in the mud, and he prays for Hercules' and his great strength to pull his cart free. Hercules appears and tells the man to take hold of the cart, and push, he does and manages to free it. Hercules than tells the man not to ask for help so quickly, for the gods only help those that help themselves.

The Bible's message is quite the opposite.

2. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204215 by Mitchell Gilks on July 4, 2008 at 12:01 pm

I don't see anything particularly objectionable in this artical. There are a few things I don't like the sound of, and a few other things I think are stupid. Though I'm not confident that I could construct a convincing argument against them from this angle.

3. New Zealand man sells his soul to 'Hell'

Comment #203627 by Mitchell Gilks on July 3, 2008 at 9:09 am

Wow, wish someone would give me 3,800 for free.

4. Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups

Comment #203347 by Mitchell Gilks on July 2, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Well now. I think this looks acceptable on paper. I am however completely unconvinced of its effectiveness is practice. I am extremely skeptical of their ability to uphold the principles he outlined. It is clear that these religious groups are out to "save souls" not help people. There is a stark contrast of goals, that makes upholding such principles impossible in my opinion.

I'm not an American, I'm Canadian, so he doesn't have to worry about my disapproval. Interestingly enough though, the other day on the news they showed a poll that claimed that Canadians favored Mr Obama over all of our Canadian politians, even our Priminister. He came in second. It would seem to me that a hell of a lot of people like Obama, and I find his latest moves to be alienating him, and damaging his popularity among his already aquired supporters in favor of the possibility of support from groups that don't currently support him. Not only do I think this is a bad move for my views on religion, but I think that this is plainly a bad political move, that could easily do his campaign more harm than good.

5. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #200913 by Mitchell Gilks on June 28, 2008 at 1:01 pm

I've learned to be intuitively suspicious of "facts" I can't remember the sourses of, because they have been the ones to let me down the most often. I guess there is good reason to do so. This makes a lot of sense to me.

6. Behe's Empty Box

Comment #193271 by Mitchell Gilks on June 15, 2008 at 5:55 am

It is never justified to call anything a supernatural evident. I think that Hume demonstrated this beautifully, and clearly. It presupposes a knowledge of nature that no one possesses. Without omniscience no one knows what isn't possible to occure by natural processes.

The very best we could say is, "that contradicts what we know about nature." if something that fitted that description were to occure, but of course the best explanation would be that our understanding of nature was wrong. Which is quite possible, since such knowledge is merely probabolistic, and fallable.

7. Behe's Empty Box

Comment #193270 by Mitchell Gilks on June 15, 2008 at 5:51 am

"Yes it is clear from the 'evidence' that the universe was intelligently designed. Which evidence is that exactly? Well, my intuition, my hopes and dreams, my ignorance, and most powerful of all, the fact that you can't prove that it wasn't!"

"Now look over there while I play the switch-a roo with 'intelligent designer' and 'the christian god'."

More amazing than the water to wine one.

damn do these people love to obfuscate and hide in ambiguity. Then switch stuff up when you aren't looking.

8. Debating creationism in Louisiana schools

Comment #192844 by Mitchell Gilks on June 14, 2008 at 3:36 am

The big thing I notice, is that on one side, we have specific objections. Names, dates, checkable facts. Yet on the other side, we have vague arm-flailing, coupled with ambigious assertions about unspecific things. Lying for Jesus.

9. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189766 by Mitchell Gilks on June 7, 2008 at 8:13 am

1406. Comment #189760 by Cartomancer

There is a term used among the yuri-fandom, "yuri-goggles". Which is used when people tend to see lesbianism where none is readily apparent.

Sounds as though this Boswell fellow had himself a pair of equivolent "goggles".

10. The day of judgment

Comment #189744 by Mitchell Gilks on June 7, 2008 at 6:03 am

15. Comment #189597 by MelM

Looks like I'll be getting an extra-special birthday present! Metal Gear Solid 4's world release is also on the 12th...I'm not going to get to play it? Lame.

11. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189717 by Mitchell Gilks on June 7, 2008 at 3:27 am

1400. Comment #189714 by Steve Zara

Sure, slap me across the face, Zara.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbibMzaM68c

12. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189711 by Mitchell Gilks on June 7, 2008 at 3:16 am

1396. Comment #189709 by Appleby

That is the third time I've prompted such a response from you.

13. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189707 by Mitchell Gilks on June 7, 2008 at 2:59 am

1390. Comment #189701 by Appleby

Why must such a society also permit homosexuality? A completely heterosexual society is still quite capable of zoophilia? How does that follow? It appears to be a complete non sequitur to me. X does not imply Y unless a direct relation is established between the two. You have said that there is none, which means what you are saying doesn't logically follow, and is thus a non sequitur.

14. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189699 by Mitchell Gilks on June 7, 2008 at 2:33 am

1387. Comment #189697 by Appleby

You completely ignored my question. Why is there reason to prohibit zoophilia if homosexuality is prohibited?

I asked you how it is anymore related than heterosexuality. Please answer the question.

15. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189694 by Mitchell Gilks on June 7, 2008 at 2:17 am

http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/animal_cruelty/bestiality.php

You should read this artical Appleby you will see the type of people that make your comparisons. Though by the way you've been going on in this thread, I wouldn't be surprized if it pleases you.

16. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189687 by Mitchell Gilks on June 7, 2008 at 1:35 am

1383. Comment #189674 by Appleby

(*cough*) (*cough*) Appeal to the people fallacy (*cough*) (*cough*).

More importantly though, your point is nonsensical. In a completely heterosexual society why is zoophilia impossible? Why is it even less possible exactly?

In what way is homosexuality more analogous to zoophilia than heterosexuality?

17. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189611 by Mitchell Gilks on June 6, 2008 at 5:03 pm

1374. Comment #189572 by al-rawandi

Thanks to PETA's official support of zoophilia I actually seriously get that sometimes.

18. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189571 by Mitchell Gilks on June 6, 2008 at 2:11 pm

1372. Comment #189566 by al-rawandi

I like that a lot, it was great.

19. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189552 by Mitchell Gilks on June 6, 2008 at 1:14 pm

I'm wondering what is suppose to be analogous to zoophilia about homosexuality? Is it sheerly the fact that it is a minority sexual behaviour?

Why is that relevant? Wouldn't that make people with green eyes analogous to pedophiles in that they are also both rare?

Besides that complete non sequitur how is it more analogous than heterosexuality is to having sex with other species of the opposite sex?

Say neanderthalensis, or homo florensiensis were still alive, and they were genetically different enough so that they we could not produce offspring. Examination of their brain structure (which is done by examining imprints left on the roof of the inner skull) suggests they were intellectually equivolent to homo sapiens. Would developing a mutually, and consentual sexual relationship with one of them, be it hetero or homo, be wrong? What is it about other species that makes it wrong other than the objections already raised? What is it, inherently, about interspecies relationships beyond the objections raised that makes it wrong?

I don't understand the parrellel you are drawing.

20. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189288 by Mitchell Gilks on June 6, 2008 at 12:25 am

1335. Comment #189287 by MaxD

I think that putting everything else aside, the inequality of the relationship would make a relationship with analogous power-distrabutions among human beings unethical.

Such relationships are also criminal. If you are a psychiatrist that takes advantage of your position and the people you have power over, legal action can be sought. In many other situations it would cost you your job at least. These situations are not even exactly analogous, as the power distrabution is still far more equal than a human and another animal. It would be more equivolent to looking for sexual prospects in a hospital for the mentally challenged.

Putting ideas of harm and consent aside, even if it wasn't harmful, and consent was given, it would still be unethical for this reason alone. As it is among human parties.

(*edit*) "Prolonged"? Had to add a notwithstanding claus in there, eh?

21. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189286 by Mitchell Gilks on June 6, 2008 at 12:06 am

1327. Comment #189279 by MaxD

I would be willing to bet that in bestieality the animals in question undergo similar ossilations in hormone outputs that we would call fear reactions

22. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189281 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 11:58 pm

All of these points are either complete red harrings or non sequiturs.

Even if all of the inflammatory and bullshit things homophobes said about homosexuality were true it wouldn't be an argument to outlaw it. From the arguments I've heard anyway. More promiscuous? When was the number of people you can legally have sex with set again? It is painful and hurts them? So does body building, or plenty of other crap we do. That's their business if they want to do it. It has dieases? Plenty of heterosexually transmitted diseases, and their are viable alternatives. It isn't natural, is rare, or is a choice? Your point being? It's like having sex with other species? I guess it's somewhat like having sex with other species of the same sex, but not more so than having sex with other species of the opposite sex is annalogous to heterosexuality. Someday science may prove it's wrong? Yeah...is/ought fallacy. Maybe someday science will prove that walking sideways during a full-moon is wrong too. I'll wait and see.

Have I missed any?

Even if all of these bullshit idiotic, fallacious claims were true, I still fail to see how it would be grounds to criminalise it or take any legislative action.

23. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189253 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 10:43 pm

Though it has been clear to me from the beginning that he is merely attempting to legislate reality with his unexamined personal preferences as the arbiter.

24. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189247 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 10:34 pm

1309. Comment #189243 by Cartomancer

He can say "these people" all he likes, he is the one arguing it.

Though if he really is playing an extremely long and incoherent game of advocatus diaboli, it may explain its nonsensical nature (I'm really bad at it myself). Though it wouldn't explain the tenacity with which he forwards the positions.

25. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189240 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 10:21 pm

1307. Comment #189238 by Cartomancer

What else could he mean? I also hope he meant something far more...sophisticated...but I fail to see what else he could have possibly meant by it.

26. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189237 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 10:16 pm

1304. Comment #189235 by Cartomancer

I assumed he meant that the one and only standard of legitimacy was the ability to produce offspring.

Which is only true if that is the one and only goal of have sex. If a baby factory were invented, with the sole purpose of producing children, then clearly a homosexual wing would not be a legitimate means of achieving this end.

My argument was that he vulgarly assumes this.

27. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189236 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 10:15 pm

twentyf..mumble...mumble birthday is coming up in a week's time

28. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189230 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 9:46 pm

I've never in my life had sex with the purpose of generating offspring. In fact I've always quite consciously taken precautionary measures to avoid it.

Sexual relations serves three purposes to my knowledge (perhaps someone can think of another one) generating offspring, physical gratification, and emotional bonding. When you remove the first purpose (as I quite deliberately do) then only the latter two remain, and there is zero distinction between which gender I'm capable of satifying them with.

Where is the romance and the love in solely having sex for offspring? Who that has sex readily available to them (which I unfortunately haven't in some time) is thinking about all those kids they're going to have?

I think I finally understand that vulgar reductionism Bonzai was talking about. This sort of mind set strikes me as extremely vulgar.

I desire sex first and foremost because it is emotionally fulfilling. The physical gratification is a plus, but there is a lot more to intimacy than just having a chemical and muscle response.

The offspring aspect is a downside for me if anything.

Unless you are completely disregarding the emotional aspect of an intimate relationship (which I find to be horrifically tragic) then I don't see how a heterosexual relationship is more "legitimate" than a homosexual one.

29. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189164 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 3:20 pm

1294. Comment #189159 by Bonzai

Ah. I remember that, it didn't hit me then, but now that I think about it, I think perhaps a case could be made that having a childhood that didn't impose such meaningless roles may be more healthy to one's psychological developement.

I also didn't notice your link to the video "I have two fathers" until awhile after you posted it, so I didn't comment, but I think it is appriopriate now to. I did think it was beautiful. The kid looked very happy, and like he loved his family very much, I think it is disgusting to ignore that kids happiness for some imaginary "possible" unidentifiable "danger".

30. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189158 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 3:07 pm

1289. Comment #189145 by Bonzai

I'm fairly convinced that social conditioning is the only reason people don't engage in sex with members of the same gender far more often.

People engage in sexual activities with members of the opposite sex they don't find particularly sexually attractive all the time. Besides the social aspects, what's the difference? Hardly anyone actually gets to have sex with their "ideal" partner.

Unfortunately though, nurture is an extremely strong force. Even if you know this on an intellectual level, one still might find becoming intimate with a member of the same sex far less appealing. Cultural conditioning is not something that is easy to break, even if you realise how arbitrary and meaningless your position really is.

(I say this because I was going to say that I would consider having sex with a member of the same sex...but that would be disengenuous. I think I'm too scued.)

31. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189140 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 2:15 pm

1284. Comment #189139 by Corylus

But in my experience, hamsters are pretty "tight".

32. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189138 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 2:12 pm

I think people are too hung up on this gay and straight stuff. What does it matter? People shouldn't be worried about whether what they are doing fits into a demographic they prefer to consider themselves a member of. They should worry about if it harms anyone, and if they enjoy doing it.

If the former is a firm no, and the latter a firm yes, then they should do it and not worry about what side of a make-believe line they're now on.

Unless they are sexual prospects, it is really no one else's business.

33. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189131 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 2:01 pm

1273. Comment #189126 by Bonzai

Isn't that a little like saying "I'm not gay but my boy-friend is"?

Lol, I'm just joking around. I know what you mean.

34. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189119 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 1:42 pm

1266. Comment #189114 by MaxD

I don't think that an immoral act ever is moral. Though sometimes they are justified. Lesser of two evils and all that Jazz.

I think in such situations you merely have to commit the least immoral action.

35. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189116 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 1:38 pm

1265. Comment #189112 by Bonzai

Accoding to wiki the Chinese name is "Hanzi", and Japan, China, Korea and Vietnam use them. Korea calls them "Hanja", and Vietnam calls them "Han Tu".

By how similar the name is, it is highly likely they are all derived from the Chinese name "Hanzi".

36. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189108 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 1:21 pm

1256. Comment #189091 by noodly_noodleson

No you're right. I was wrong. I was mistaking the official kanji set out by the government for the ones solely being used. No one really knows how many there are. There are also a lot that are outdated, and have been simplified over the centeries.

Although I wasn't saying that "Kanji" was a chinese word. It is what the Japanese call the symbolic system of writing, but the chinese still use it as well as some other asian countries, they just all have different names for it.

I'm also pretty sure that when they talk about the Kanji, it includes all of them, used all over asian in those 80,000. I was mistaken in thinking that the Japanese only make use of 3007 of them. Those are just the recommended ones by the government. I guess all of them could be theoretically made use of.

(*edit*) there, I've fixed my channel. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

37. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189070 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 11:00 am

Here is the first part of my moral argument for vegetarianism, as promised. Save your objections for now please. I will get around to addressing common criticisms and attempted refutations in later videos. I haven't heard anything new for some time, so you can rest assured that I've likely heard your objection in some form and will address it. If I do not, or don't address it to you satisfaction, then please feel free to tell me so when the series is complete.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj0Qr5y2hFM

38. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189005 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 7:48 am

1218. Comment #188965 by noodly_noodleson on

No that is inaccurate all ways around. There are 45,000 Chinese kanji, and in order to be functionally literate you need to know 3-4 thousand.

I'm learning Japanese however, and there are 3007 characters, 1945 of which are called the Joyo Kanji (or common use Kanji) and you are functionally literate if you know them. However a study I was reading awhile ago claimed that you could read about 80% of a Japanese news paper if you only know the 800 most common. Since I'm going for complete proficiency though, I'm not going for just the most common.

I think that your confusion lies in the name "Kanji" which means "chinese characters" and there are something like 80, 000 all together, but that is counting every writing system that makes use of them. Each writing system doesn't make use of them all, most of them are adapted or invented for the specific writing system they are using. Several different asian languages make use of the Kanji writing system, I'm only learning the Japanese version, which only makes use of 3007 of them (not including the phonetic kana writing system used for foreign names and words).

I did specify "Japanese" on my channel.

39. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188856 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 8:07 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggecq52sbR0

Oh c'mon Applyby, who's your man-crush? Every guy I've ever known has always had at least one man-crush. Some idolized hero we all know they would let them do anything to them.

Oh I've got at least three.

Wapourif is a damn sexy man.

Son Goku will always be the ultimate super hero.

and Kisuke Urahara is cool as shit.

C'mon, tell us your man-crush.

40. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188814 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 4:02 pm

1157. Comment #188808 by Podaar

I'm not attempting to be obtuse. I don't mean to ignore your question. Did I not answer it? When I wrote what you quoted I didn't mean it to come off as hostile, or in any way defensive.

If I haven't answered your question to your satisfaction then please outline it again for me. It is not for lack of trying.

41. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188806 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 3:28 pm

1154. Comment #188801 by Podaar

If a person were crossing the street the best option may be to not break, if the risk of breaking is higher than the risk of not breaking, then clearly don't break. I don't remember suggesting that anyone should risk their lives, or do anything unreasonable.

42. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188805 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 3:21 pm

One thing I will say is that think that genetic relation is a red herring because everyone is not equally related to you, so it can't be grounds for equal moral consideration. It also suffers from a rather unrealistic, but I still think valid hypothetical. If sentient alien life were to show up, by that logic anything on earth should be of more moral concern than them. Though if they were showing up here, they would clearly be the ones in the position to do harm...so I would just hope that their ethical views were not swayed by genetic relation.

43. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188800 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 3:11 pm

1149. Comment #188793 by Elli

Thank you very much. Sam Harris is my intellectual hero (out of still living individuals).

44. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188799 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 3:09 pm

1148. Comment #188789 by Samir Nayanajaad

Well firstly, veganism is a result of my ethical base. Much like atheism is a result of being a philosophical skeptic.

I'd say it is founded on what I'll call "the good". I try to formulate it like a system of logic. There is nothing that says one ought and ought not be logical, or rational. This depends on your aims. So in a way it is utilitarian, though I won't argue for accepting it on pragmatic grounds, as least not at first. I'm only going to focus on moral grounds first. I may make a second part about benefits, but I don't think they are all that impressive of reasons.

Basically I will attempt to demonstrate that if you bore desire rational consistency, and human equality, then you must reduce your appreciation to a universal quality that all human beings share (which I call the good) and once you have done this you will find that human beings are not the only sentient beings that make the cut, so in order to retain consistency of moral appreciating within the human species, it requires that you also appreciate the same qualities in other sentient animals.

I don't want to get into too much depth right now. I will outline this all in as detailed as I can.

45. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188795 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 2:51 pm

1146. Comment #188785 by Podaar

Unless a clear and relevent difference that respects my moral foundations can be outlined, then I don't think that you have any rational grounds to be more respective of a homo sapiens feelings, desires, and well-being than another animal that is capable of the same feelings. No, I don't.

Emotional, sure. This is unavoidable. Everyone is a little bit sexist, a little bit racist, and a little be nationalist, and all of those groups we identify with. Despite how intellectually unjustfied we may realise this to be, it doesn't change this fact. The most important thing you can do is be conscious of your biases, and do not allow them to interfer in your rational decision making process. There is no such thing as an completely imparial or unbiased person, and the worst thing I think a person can do is pretend it's not there. That definitely doesn't help. This often even manifests in favortism towards other groups because an unconscious preception of inferiority. I think this is responsible for a lot of "multiculturalism" forms of racism that I see.

Often I shock myself with the things I'm saying, they seem so counter-intuitive, and just not right on some level. Though aslong as they appear sound that isn't gounds to dismiss them.

I don't think that just answering this question is very productive though without first discussing what we based our moral and ethical views on to begin with.

46. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188787 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 2:36 pm

I personally think that the arguments for veganism are amazingly strong. I was blind sided two and a half years ago by someone arguing for it, and (this sounds corny and like bullshit, but I'm going to say it anyway) I argued quite confidently for sometime with them, but my arguments were easily knocked down. I didn't change by mind right there and then (I did argue it with them online for days) but I think within 6 months I decided they were right, and I couldn't just ignore it.

I'm actually not particually an animal lover, and I happened to love meat a lot. Especially cheese...Darwin do I miss cheese. Psuedo-cheese is not at all the same. I also frankly feel awkward even eating simulation animal products...it's somehow creepy to me.

Now since I'm poor, I basically live on potatoes mixed vegetables and choke down peanut butter (which I abolutely hate, though I require the protein) every morning. I don't enjoy eating at all anymore.

Also I didn't even really get skinny, I was fatter. I lost about 40 lbs within the first year, but I've stayed around 185-190 for the past year (I'm 5 11"). So I'm still a long ways off skinny.

I'm not going to pretend and say that there are a lot of personal upsides to it, like many do, because there definately isn't for me. Maybe if you can afford it the food wouldn't be worse. I do think that the arguments for the ethicality of veganism is amazingly strong, and I hope to outline it in the following days.

Cheers.

47. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188779 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 2:16 pm

1125. Comment #188742 by Podaar

Depends on what you mean by "regard". I would suppose you hold different people at different levels of regard, depending on their qualities. I know that I do.

I am surely not going to convince anyone of anything, and just plowing forward without first giving an indepth explanation of my moral and ethical framework, as well as the foundations for which moral and ethical frameworks are devised and maintained. I will just be perpetually talking past everyone.

I have been putting it off for awhile, but I think I'll start it tomorrow. I have been meaning to forward a video series on youtube (I have a few arguments against a few things up already) outlining my argument for veganism, starting with the very foundations of ethics and morality. It will take several episodes, but I'll try to write one a day and post it on my channel for awhile.

This is my channel with a few arguments against other things. This will be my first argument for something. The videoes are spread among my yuri tribute videos. I also am terrible at reading outloud, so don't expect anything amazing.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Darsises

48. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188739 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 1:01 pm

1122. Comment #188737 by annabanana

I actually did. I asked if he would be willing to apply such reasoning to human populations.

His retort was his disbelief of my comparison, and how "animals were lower" when I challenged this it went ignored. So I took it as silent concession.

Well beyond that odd attempt with his dog. But I hardly hope he didn't think that demonstrated a fundamental relevent difference that appears in all humans but not in all non-humans that he is suggesting are missing it. His gut tells him that his dog's personality doesn't have the same depth, therefore it is of less value to him.

I also should note that it went from "no personalities" to "personalities with less depth." Whatever that means.

49. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188723 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 12:21 pm

1117. Comment #188720 by al-rawandi

(*sigh*) I'm not interested in arguing this with you.

50. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188721 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 12:17 pm

1111. Comment #188704 by al-rawandi

You are beginning to sound like applyby yourself now. There is nothing other than arbitrary distinctions that seperate the species, no relevent differences. They suffer, and can be harmed. Fear, and experience anxiety equally as much as a human being. Cutting the line off as species is no less arbitrary than race, or sex. You would need to demonstrate a relevent difference that is exists in all humans and in none of the animals you are claiming the difference to seperate us from. Arguments from ignorance or faith based assertions that you just suppose are true don't count.

Non-human animals not having a personality is factually mistaken according to the evidence, and would be a statement of faith even if that weren't true.


Where you not saying to kill the deer to prevent accidents? Are you talking about me saying all? Well how does that effect my reductio exactly? Ok, pull some of your teeth to help prevent cavities. Better?

I seem to miss the context you are using logic in? Which rule of which system have I broken?