751. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220346 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 10:34 am

261. Comment #220345 by thewhitepearl

Pretty sure he meant "if not a threat of violence".

752. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220344 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 10:30 am

259. Comment #220343 by hungarianelephant

I call violence anything that is physically damaging to your person. Incarceration need not be.

753. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220342 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 10:23 am

245. Comment #220326 by hungarianelephant

I wholeheartedly agree with your criticism of the UN.

The fatal flaw in your suggestion of voluntarily paying for such services is that those that can pay for it don't need the services, while those that do can't pay for it. Everyone needs capable of paying needs to pay or it simply can't work. This is true of any state payed for service. Only the people that need the services can't pay for it themselves.

Your analogy is false, because in order for "Mad Tony" to appriopriate the funds from you, he must use violence, or give up. The State will never use violence towards you until you use violence first. There is only a threat of violence as a counter measure to your own violent actions. Also there is a threat of violence if you resist apprehension, but that isn't necessarily tied into your tax evasion, but it isn't relevant.

You also end the example with a false dichotomy. Either violence or nothing. There is plenty of other actions at the states disposal, and violence isn't even one of them. Violence is seperate and unrelated to your offence in any way other than the states need to apprehend you. It is misleading and inappriopriate to tie this into any individual cases.

754. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220313 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 9:43 am

Utopian delusions scare the crap out of me. I can't even think of Star Trek without shivering.

755. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220306 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 9:36 am

224. Comment #220299 by BFKate

I was close.

756. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220302 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 9:31 am

215. Comment #220290 by BFKate

Drug/sex free and christian.

757. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220291 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 9:24 am

195. Comment #220265 by hungarianelephant

Not under threat of physical force she isn't. The escelation of force is entirely up to you. They will enforce the law by any means necessary, but what means are necessary are up to you. Force is not a threat for not paying your taxes. It is how you behave to the state's coersion that determines that.

It very much is a slippery slope fallacy. Which is precisely saying that B C and D follows from A without considering relevant variables. I definitely consider bustin' out "Betsy" and lobin' some shot off at state officals to be a relevant variable.

It may be presumptuous to comment on your friend's death, but I find it in bad taste to introduce an example that is personal, which makes it difficult to comment on. I would say that your friend's death was a result of the fault of officiers of the system, not the system itself. There is no such thing as a perfect system, and there is, and always will be the threat of human error. I think that the law should fall just as heavily on any officer (perhaps more heavily) whom makes such an error, if their error can be shown to be negligence.

It is just a fact that laws cannot be upheld without the willingness to use appriopriate force, depending on the force received.

You need to demonstrate that there is a threat of violance for the tax infraction itself or there is no link to caustion.

758. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220268 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 9:08 am

Well, if 1970-90 hollywood action movies have taught me anything, they have taught me that most terrorists are Russian. Occationally Chinese.

759. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220240 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 8:44 am

162. Comment #220225 by hungarianelephant

She isn't at liberty to reframe from paying taxes. Also, if you allot such a slippery slope of "if you don't pay taxes armed men will come and shoot you" you must also allot this for the violation of any law, even ones that would only result in a minor fine. I can easily ad hoc a scenero in which you'd get your ass shot in just about any situation. Claiming that it is ultimately the result of the the minor infraction of the law is not only fallaciously reductionist, but I would argue plainly disengenuous.

760. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220202 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 8:00 am

140. Comment #220199 by hungarianelephant

I disagree that you can't negotiate the terms. Society is not an entity in itself, it's a collective of individuals. All one must do to change anything is get enough people on your side. You cannot reasonably expect to change the workings of a system that has implications over everyone without a large number of those people on your side.

761. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220158 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 6:46 am

Not to mention that not getting respect and admiration isn't going to effect your quality of life.

Also, getting state provided health care, and employment help doesn't exactly land one with mountains of respect and admiration.

It is just a silly false analogy that I don't see a single relation between.

762. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220149 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 6:32 am

Totally agree. It is disgusting to not give medical attention to those that need it.

763. Write to UCF

Comment #219906 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 6:26 pm

260. Comment #219900 by hawt4dawk

You mean the one with Soifon and the black kitten? That is a rather hilarious inside joke. You'd have to be a fan of Bleach to get.

764. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #219891 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Human doesn't actually have anything to do with species, it is anything that carries the characteristics of a person. Homo habalis is considered to be the first "human species". If aliens exist, and are individual persons, then they would also be human.

765. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #219886 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 4:52 pm

21. Comment #219884 by mordacious1

We just have to get on corrupting their young with our evil decadence faster. No youth can resist video games, junk-food and porn for long!

Yeah, I gave it back to him. This site wasn't big enough for two of those hats. Besides, my new avatar is much, MUCH better.

766. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #219877 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 4:40 pm

13. Comment #219872 by mordacious1

Maybe we need a toys for radical-muslim-beliefs campaign? Think that could work?

"For not desiring to take over the world anymore, you get a tickle me elmo!"

767. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #219874 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 4:37 pm

14. Comment #219873 by kkelly

How gracious of them. I really hope the time never comes when the best thing that can be said about me is that I don't support the murdering of groups I disagree with/don't like.

768. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #219858 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Well damn. Scary. I can understand free speech and expression, but the university is under no obligation to grant hate-mongers a medium to spew their hate speech. They should be yelling it on the street from behind carbaord signs, like the rest of the lunatics.

769. Biology Enters 'The Matrix' Through New Computer Language

Comment #219848 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 4:00 pm

I'll believe this singularity buisness when I see it, until then, it's merely si-fi.

This article is interesting though. Mt pc will try to replace me, but I'll replace it instead!

770. Write to UCF

Comment #219835 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 3:42 pm

254. Comment #219833 by Brian English

Post was addressed to you, but it wasn't against anything you said. As I said, I thought that you agreed. My example was maybe superfluous.

771. Write to UCF

Comment #219834 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 3:41 pm

248. Comment #219757 by Layla Nasreddin

It is a conundrum...one I wish I had the answer to, but I don't. It is exceptually hard to tell someone that their beliefs and ideas are stupid without them taking it as a personal attack. I think this should almost always be avoided. The only time I would do something like that is if they were trying to push them on me or others. Or aquire them undue respect. Beyond that I would try to avoid speaking in a way that insults them, even if that was not my intention

772. Write to UCF

Comment #219832 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 3:35 pm

252. Comment #219825 by Brian English

I wasn't addressing anything you said. I was merely further elucidating my own point. I thought you had agreed.

773. Write to UCF

Comment #219720 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 12:33 pm

245. Comment #219717 by Steve Zara

Flattery gets you nowhere...but by all means, continue!

I can be marginally civil when I'm not sure who's right, better yet, not sure there is a "right". Perhaps, "most appriopriate". Even if we don't come away agreeing, perhaps we have both at least refined our views, if only slightly. What more could one ask for?

774. Write to UCF

Comment #219712 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 12:14 pm

243. Comment #219708 by Steve Zara

I just couldn't take him very seriously. I thought it was pretty funny. Bonzai has an excellent sense of humour too. I especially liked that "angy AND dumb" remark.

775. Write to UCF

Comment #219692 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 11:29 am

240. Comment #219680 by Steve Zara


http://richarddawkins.net/article,1643,Youtube-hater-I-respect-your-right-to-free-speech,Brian-Sapient

776. Write to UCF

Comment #219638 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 10:33 am

233. Comment #219629 by Steve Zara

Did you read that thread in the "backlash" section where I showed disapproval of them and sapient and Kelly showed up to freak out at me. Calling me a christian in disguise and quote mining my posts. It's still there. I thought it was fairly amusing myself. I was happy when I noticed that this site no longer links to them.

777. Write to UCF

Comment #219633 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 10:30 am

230. Comment #219626 by Dr Doctor

I thought that it legitimized a specific religion, and gave the impression that it is to be taken more seriously than others. I don't take christianity any more seriously than I do any other religion, old or new, dead or alive.

778. Write to UCF

Comment #219628 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 10:25 am

227. Comment #219620 by Steve Zara

Oh I upset people all the time, and I know exactly why, but I'm not willing to change. I'm not exactly anti-social, but I don't get along well with others, because I've yet to master the art of keeping my mouth shut.

I'm pretty brutally honest.

779. Write to UCF

Comment #219621 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 10:17 am

I'm opposed to the descration thing. Remember we discussed that in some length on a couple other threads. Hell, I was even opposed to the blasphemy challenge.

780. Write to UCF

Comment #219618 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 10:13 am

223. Comment #219615 by Steve Zara

You haven't upset me...but then I'm the one that's been attacking your position this entire time. Or at least that's how my brain sees it.

781. Write to UCF

Comment #219616 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 10:10 am

222. Comment #219613 by Steve Zara

Why are you talking about descrating a eucharist? I thought we were talking about telling them exactly what we think of their ideas when pushed into the public sphere, and used as a foundation to seek political or social action against members of a secular society. Disallowing them from taking such action under ridiculous premises, and unloading polemics.

782. Write to UCF

Comment #219612 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 10:05 am

219. Comment #219610 by Steve Zara

And that culture is only coincidentally linked to that geography.

783. Write to UCF

Comment #219609 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 10:03 am

Steve, for someone who thinks the best of people, aren't you being uncharitable with this "they" buisness?

How many people have said "oh yes, I think that's true of every single catholic" when you have confronted them? Or have they not attempted to clarify that they did not mean that as DD is trying to now?

Why not assume the best of them? I don't assume the best of people, but even I assume they don't mean all of them.

784. Write to UCF

Comment #219604 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 9:59 am

210. Comment #219601 by Steve Zara

I don't think that is at all true, but the golden rule is insufficent in any case. Actions are easily rationalised under it. If I'm a straight crazy guy, I could think that I'd deserve death if I were gay. Doesn't favor well for homosexuals. If I were a male misogynist I could think that if I were a women I would deserve all that they get.

That aside, I don't think for a second that most people treat others how they would like themselves to be treated. Just look at the state of the world.

The geographical locations are mere correlation, not causation.

785. Write to UCF

Comment #219600 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 9:52 am

202. Comment #219590 by Steve Zara

In both cases I think you're mistaken. Though that is beside the point, it is no less an unevident assumption that generalizes a group. In fact it generalizes a far larger group.

786. Write to UCF

Comment #219596 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 9:49 am

201. Comment #219588 by Steve Zara

Those are not equivolent. Catholicism is a set of tenets and dogams that one follows of their own volition. Atheism is a position on a single question, and America is merely a geographical location.

Also, I think you are blind to history and world affairs if you think people are generally reasonable and good. If that were true, then every human right, freedom, and piece of knowledge would not have been hard fought. It would not require the indoctrination of young, and the deaths of elder generations before things started to change.

Most of the things we hold dear, as moral and ethical principles are nothing but concepts we've been taught are good and should be respected. In most cases this is true, but it doesn't change the fact that they were hard fought, and after a political or societal change it takes a generation or two for the populus to catch up. Time enough for those solidified in their views to die, and the newer generations that have been indoctrinated into holding the principles takes over.

787. Write to UCF

Comment #219587 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 9:40 am

198. Comment #219584 by Steve Zara

I think solid evidence is needed if one is going to generalise about the attitudes and possible actions of hundreds of millions of people.

I would feel uncomfortable about doing that.

788. Write to UCF

Comment #219561 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 6:09 am

Bonzai, if you're still around. Were you introduced to english at a young age? Or did you only start to really get to learn it when you moved to Canada? I presume you took english in school in Hong Kong (I believe that is where you said you were from), but if it's anything like French in Canadian schools, then it doesn't really count.

I ask because you are better than I am at english, so I dream to be that fluent in Japanese someday. I'm wondering how long it took you. (I'm not crazy enough to think I'll be fluent in two years, by the way. I only meant enough to grasp it at a decent level).

789. Write to UCF

Comment #219560 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 6:02 am

187. Comment #219559 by Laurie Fraser

That, I didn't know.

I'd like to get into translating in a couple years (maybe) when I hope to be good enough at Japanese, but before I do, I'm going to need to take a course in english.

790. Write to UCF

Comment #219558 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 5:58 am

185. Comment #219557 by Laurie Fraser

I don't mind at all. Should have seen how bad I was before I owned a computer. When I was like nineteen, I could barely spell my name, and never used punctuation at all. I still don't know how to use punctuation, it's all guess work, but I don't get too many complaints in that respect. I figure either far fewer people know a lot about punctuation as those that do about grammer and spelling, or I'm winging it half decently.

Without people pointing out my mistakes, I'd never learn. I don't like it when it was just a brain fart mistake though. I'm rather self conscious about those, but when I didn't know that it was a mistake, I am happy that it was pointed out.

791. Write to UCF

Comment #219554 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 5:42 am

179. Comment #219548 by Bonzai

That is very true I think. I have an especially hard time translating turns of phrases into writing, or spelling certain words I don't pronounce correctly. Though I think it's mostly dyslexia. I know the difference, but I replace words that only sound a little similar, or make weird spelling mistakes with letter combinations that sound similar. I think because I didn't take english in school I go almost one hundred percent on intuition and ear.

Though I have been making analogous mistakes with the kanji. Misplacing them for words that mean something similar, or sound the same. I also have a smaller problem remembering the order of the primatives. The stroke order hasn't given me much trouble though. I have about an 80% recollection rate on reviews, and about half my mistakes are the problems I described, the other half are forgetting them outright.

I don't know, I'd probably use both. If I thought about it I would likely go with "most stupid" but if I wasn't thinking I would likely just as easily say "Stupidest".

792. Write to UCF

Comment #219543 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 5:16 am

173. Comment #219542 by Dr Doctor

Ghetto.

793. Write to UCF

Comment #219541 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 5:11 am

170. Comment #219539 by Dr Doctor

What is the tea selection like? You seem to have revealed knowledge.

794. Write to UCF

Comment #219540 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 5:09 am

169. Comment #219538 by Laurie Fraser

I'm dyslexic, so I misplace words that rhyhme. Don't get me started on words that only vary by those degrees. Even with a 50/50 chance I seem to always put the wrong "its/it's" down.

I need to go over posts four/five times before they are intelligible.

I tried to write a book once...the editing was so demanding that I couldn't go through with it. Gave up about a hundred pages in.

795. Write to UCF

Comment #219534 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 5:01 am

162. Comment #219530 by Steve Zara

Settin' the bar kinda low there Steve. Also, don't you mean psychopath? Why can't a sociopath be a decent person?

163. Comment #219531 by Dr Doctor

Are there cups in orbit of the pot aswell?

796. Write to UCF

Comment #219526 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 4:42 am

156. Comment #219524 by Steve Zara

So you'd just like it to be true? Well, I don't agree that most people are decent. I don't assume the worst of people, but I'm also not in the business of believing what I'd like to be true either.

797. Write to UCF

Comment #219521 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 4:16 am

150. Comment #219517 by Steve Zara

What are you basing this speculation on Steve? Where are all these Catholics in opposition to it? Do we have an article by one perhaps?

152. Comment #219520 by Steve Zara

Consider it unpilfered.

798. Write to UCF

Comment #219518 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 4:12 am

144. Comment #219511 by articulett

Well then prepare for Jesus' mysterious wrath. Rest assured, however you die, that was exactly what Jesus planned.

799. Write to UCF

Comment #219516 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 4:10 am

146. Comment #219513 by Steve Zara

It isn't against all Catholics. It is only against the ones both in support of the bullying tactics, and that think that the premise that the cracker has human rights deserves politcal credence in secular society. I'm on the side of every Catholic who agrees with me. ;)

I think it's time we discuss the terms of our schism. We get the frilly dresses, and you can keep the funny hats.

800. Write to UCF

Comment #219509 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 3:50 am

139. Comment #219506 by Steve Zara

I just finished saying that yelling "you are wrong" was not my goal, or even relevant to my goal at this point. Stoping them, and demonstrating my complete lack of credence for their idiocy would be my goal. I mean, I said three times that we don't have to convince them, Steve.

Then you are suggesting a war of ideas, this is a battle. A softer approach may be better in the long run, but I wouldn't want to risk casualties under the hopes that it is.