651. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210731 by Mitchell Gilks on July 15, 2008 at 3:08 am

218. Comment #210728 by Christopher Davis

Well, I don't need much prepation to converse with crazies. MPhil, on the other hand, even if I'm right I'm almost assuredly going to get destroyed. That will be more like a debate between a tenured professor and a first year student. Can't say I don't find it exciting though.

652. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210723 by Mitchell Gilks on July 15, 2008 at 2:43 am

206. Comment #210708 by Christopher Davis

No one knows those variables you lunatic. Not in the heat of the moment. He could be a child-raping Jew-killing, neo-Nazi, addicted to the tears of kittens. Or, he could be a Japanese tourist, who doesn't know the meaning of the word "freeze".

You don't know when it's unfolding. Do you ask them to take a personality test before you decide to pull the trigger?

If you didn't like my over simplification of "a life is worth more than a truck" then that is completely removed from a burglar scenerio. Instead of saying very crazy things, why didn't you just say "more than Hitler's life" or something, given, insane, but at least less insane? Clearly not absolutely and in ever conceivable scenerio.

(and you told me I didn't have to talk to people like they were martians, Bonzai)

Lastly, I see you wanted me to climb off the cross so you could take over. My savior.

653. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210704 by Mitchell Gilks on July 15, 2008 at 2:02 am

200. Comment #210696 by MPhil

I'm glad that you don't want to at the moment. I would need a lot of time to prepair before I would be willing to put up an important world view against you.

Besides, I'm in the process of making a video series, that completely outlines all of my arguments. The first one is up on youtube, and I have the second one recorded, but I've delayed it for over a month now because I've had a sinus infection which involves a bad headacke, which makes me rather irritable, and my thoughts clouded.

So, I would be happy to have you wipe the floor with me after I've completely my video series. Though, I am pretty thoroughly convinced of the crux of my position, I can see you perhaps changing my mind on some related subjects, but I highly doubt you'll have me eating steak.

654. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210694 by Mitchell Gilks on July 15, 2008 at 1:53 am

64. Comment #210636 by Mitchell Gilks

I think you're conflating Godwin's law with a reductio ad hitlerum.

66. Comment #210687 by fides_et_ratio

All of pychology suffers from similar critisms.

655. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210692 by Mitchell Gilks on July 15, 2008 at 1:45 am

196. Comment #210689 by MPhil

I think that your post assumes a lot about morals. Mainly a universal system, or standard, agreed upon by everyone.

If your moral standard is "whatever god says is good is good, and whatever he says is bad is bad", and you're a christian, then saying homosexuality is immoral, is, under your standard. (presupposing you assume the bible is his literal word)

So I'll need that explained, and clarified as to what I am assuming unjustifiably before I can respond.

656. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210691 by Mitchell Gilks on July 15, 2008 at 1:39 am

Is it just me, or is there somekind of correlation with asserting how great your rational skills are, and how poor everyone else's is, and having none?

I mean it kind of trickles down doesn't it? To "Clearmind" who asserts this every post, to those that just assert it every other post.

I notice that the most rational, and knowledgable contributors never assert this.

I wonder if there is some real negative correlation there.

Just thinking outloud.

657. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210682 by Mitchell Gilks on July 15, 2008 at 1:22 am

192. Comment #210680 by Christopher Davis

You disgust me.

Your last post that completely lacked any form of intellectual objection to my points was enough to not respond to, but this is just sick.

Actually attempting to justify killing burglars because they might kill someone someday. Are you insane?

I wouldn't trust you in a position of civil responsibility, let alone with a firearm.

658. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210677 by Mitchell Gilks on July 15, 2008 at 1:11 am

I misunderstood the application of the farmers gun, you're right. Though I don't think there should be animal farms to begin with, I do agree that quickly killed, if that was going to be it's end anyway when the vet arrived.

I'd rather not comment on what you brought up for hunting. I don't agree with it, but why is complicated and would take a lot of explaintion that would greatly sidetrack the thread. So I will just leave it at that.

659. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210669 by Mitchell Gilks on July 15, 2008 at 12:55 am

182. Comment #210668 by Brian English

Well, this is where I reveal that I'm a rather extreme leftist, bleeding-heart, liberal vegan.

I'm against hunting and the butchery of non-human animals aswell, though they don't necessarily tie into this subject. So I have left them as seperate issues. As I do agree that hunting and butchery firearms, probably do not pose a great risk to the general public, but they should not be allowed to be brought into areas with a certain level of population density.

Also, there are non-lethal alternatives for law enforcement, like rubber bullets, and so forth.

I am not saying that the police shouldn't have lethal, or more powerful weapons at their disposal, but they should not be used unless faced with equal or greater force.

660. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210664 by Mitchell Gilks on July 15, 2008 at 12:39 am

178. Comment #210663 by Brian English

Owning a gun, for fear of having to kill someone is the last of all possible options for me. I'd move away to a place with no people before I'd be willing to risk having to kill someone.

Besides, guns are often used against burglars...isn't that overly accessive? A burglar is just trying to steal from you, there is no risk to your life. Yet people using guns against them all the time. A couple years ago, the nephew of a guy I know was shot and killed attempted to steal a guys truck.

I don't think a truck is ever worth a person's life.

661. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210657 by Mitchell Gilks on July 15, 2008 at 12:23 am

172. Comment #210649 by Christopher Davis

Well, some of us care about everybody.

I can't argue with the rest, and if you want to play it like that, then your argument becomes your personal desire to own guns, and how that desire trumps society at large's health, and desire.

In which case, you might as well be a criminal arguing that your thievery is justified on similar grounds.

662. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210651 by Mitchell Gilks on July 15, 2008 at 12:13 am

168. Comment #210645 by Christopher Davis

I wouldn't think that would matter? Even if the gun is not used, you are still in a confrontation with a person with a gun.

Take any class of confrontation. Say, confrontation class A (you can decide what this is) add more guns, and there is more confrontations in that class that involve guns. How is this hard to understand?

Oh course I don't think firearms themselves are the problem. I'd have no trouble at all sleeping in a room filled with guns. I'm worried when those guns are in the hands of people that are capable of operating them. Clearly, I'm not afraid of a gun jumping out of a case and attacking me. Does this really need to be spelled out?

What truly is naive is talking about make guns available to the general public, but yet not easily accessible. How are you defining this then? I call anything that is legally available to the public, and does not cost an accessive amount of money to be easily accessible. Even if you had rigorous screening, it doesn't stop criminals from purchasing guns third hand, from people that can pass the tests.

Criminals will always be able to get guns, sure, as long as they are available anywhere (they could even manufacture their own if need be), but making them available to the public, no matter how well screened, makes it a hell of a lot easier for them to aquire them.

Also, and large number of gun related deaths and injuries are accidental.

663. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210644 by Mitchell Gilks on July 14, 2008 at 11:37 pm

166. Comment #210643 by Christopher Davis

You're being ractionary by mentioning anecdotes meant to stir emotions. The big picture is what matters. In a single scenerio it could very well be better to have guns, but the cost to lose ratio of making guns accessible is what matters. Over all, not individual cases. If over all this results in more harm than good than it is not the favorable option.

If having an armed populus results in more deaths and injuries than having an unarmed populus, then no anecdote of a poor family being brutely harmed or murdered is going to make having guns accessable to the populus the best course of action.

664. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210642 by Mitchell Gilks on July 14, 2008 at 11:29 pm

162. Comment #210635 by Christopher Davis

Um, yes it does.

It is pretty simple. Say you have 100 confrontations a year. Only so many have guns, increase the number of individuals with guns, and the number of confrontations with individuals that have guns of course rises.

665. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210636 by Mitchell Gilks on July 14, 2008 at 11:20 pm

62. Comment #210598 by Cluebot

Godwin's law is only that the probability of a comparison with Hitler or Nazis increases as a discussion grows longer. I did make a comparison. I don't think that it matters that it was meant to be absurd, silly, and ridiculous.

666. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210631 by Mitchell Gilks on July 14, 2008 at 11:14 pm

159. Comment #210629 by Brian English

I don't know very much about communism, but I do remember MPhil saying that it wasn't fair to say that communism doesn't work, because no communist state has ever lived up to communism on paper. Or something around those lines.

667. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210628 by Mitchell Gilks on July 14, 2008 at 11:04 pm

148. Comment #210609 by Bonzai

I've never understood the vitriolic reaction to the evil socialism by Americans. I've understood that there was a long campaign of anti-scotialist rhetoric, but I wouldn't think it would be that effective. I'm even aware of some elderly canadians who profess a like reaction to the idea, just before going to get free medication.

Man, this year has been a bad year for me medical-wise. I had abdominal surgery, a kidney stone, and I'm still recovering from a bad sinus infection that had me in bed for almost a month. I'm poor, I never would have been able to seek medical attention if it wasn't for these socialist systems I love.

668. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210619 by Mitchell Gilks on July 14, 2008 at 10:40 pm

What's the difference between owning two guns or ten guns? You can only hold so many at a time.

669. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210617 by Mitchell Gilks on July 14, 2008 at 10:38 pm

152. Comment #210615 by Christopher Davis

Well, CD, that wouldn't be flawed logic, that would be a mispresentation. It would be flawed logic if what I said didn't follow.

Are you saying that guns are not far more easily accessable in a society where they are not prohibited than they are in a society where they are?

670. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210607 by Mitchell Gilks on July 14, 2008 at 10:24 pm

141. Comment #210595 by Brian English

I've got a lot more chance of dying in a car accident than being shot. I'm not planning on giving up driving to counter the risk, just like I'm not planning on getting a firearm to counter the unlikely risk of someone trying to kill me.

671. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210602 by Mitchell Gilks on July 14, 2008 at 10:09 pm

I thought that I stifled this silly slippery slope fallacy of "we can't completely elimiate X, so lets not bother trying to regulate or prevent it at all.".

That is just idiotic. We can't get rid of all guns, so lets all own ten assault rifles.

Making guns easily accessable so that you can protect yourself if confronted by an armed man only increases the probability that you will arrive at a situation where you are confronted by an armed man. Clearly.

Some of us would prefer to find the best way to reduce the chances of such an incident unfolding. That is what I call planning for it, and protecting myself.

Besides all that, doesn't the second amendment only gaurantee the right to bear arms to "well regulated militias"?

672. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210592 by Mitchell Gilks on July 14, 2008 at 9:32 pm

49. Comment #210373 by Sciros

If I'm not mistaken #4 was an activity Osaka professed enjoying, from Azumanga Daioh.

Or at least it sounds like something she'd say.

56. Comment #210537 by Shuggy

I don't regret it because it's not true, I regret saying it because I'm not in a position to be mocking someone who doesn't speak english as their first language. Maybe if I knew more than one language I'd feel more comfortable, but he has clearly got one up on me. The only languages I know a little bit of, are French and Japanese, and I couldn't keep up a constructive coversation with a five year old in either.

673. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210334 by Mitchell Gilks on July 14, 2008 at 9:19 am

I regret my comment about "killing the english language". That wasn't cool. I only speak one language, while I'm attempting to learn Japanese, I'd love to be as good at Japanese as he is at english.

It is a really stupid thing to do to give someone grief who doesn't speak the language as their first language. I apologize for that comment.

674. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210325 by Mitchell Gilks on July 14, 2008 at 9:04 am

645. Comment #210212 by Steve Zara

I think you would agree with the following.

I have no problem with words, no matter how pugnacious, as long as they keep within certain guidelines, of not threatening to harm someone, and in order to stay within the bounds of decent etiquette, don't insult their person either. Though even that isn't overly objectionable.

What I do think is quite objectional is...well, consider the following example. You know someone that plays with a barbie-doll. They are convinced that this is a person, and they love them. Clearly this person is insane, and there is nothing wrong with telling them so, or harbouring absolutely no respect, or consideration for their belief.

It is a whole other story if you snatch their barbie-doll away and start sawing it's head off in front of him while he balls his eyes out.

The former is perfectly acceptable, the later is just plainly a huge dick thing to do. You aren't proving any points, or convincing them, or helping them in anyway. You're just being a total bastard.

675. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210303 by Mitchell Gilks on July 14, 2008 at 8:27 am

31. Comment #210279 by clearmind

The only solution is to have real faith in our hearts where there would be no hatred.

676. Man Sues Church Over 'God Injury'

Comment #210281 by Mitchell Gilks on July 14, 2008 at 7:53 am

It's hard to laugh at a mans misfortune...but...hahahahaha.

Looks like the spirit didn't just move him, it kicked his ass.

677. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210262 by Mitchell Gilks on July 14, 2008 at 7:20 am

"You think if Jesus had a gun he would have won?"

"Guns aren't bad! Fact! Did you know that Jesus and Moses used guns to defeat the Romans?"

Less guns, less shootings. Making guns harder to aquire makes it harder for criminals to aquire them as well. Of course not impossible, and it's true, we will never be able to stop everyone who really, really wants a gun from getting one. We also can't stop all crime. So clearly lets dispatch the police, and decriminalize everything, they clearly aren't working.

If the outlawing of firearms offsets injury and death of the population by even a small margin then it is clearly better than not outlawing firearms. Unless your goals are different.

I also think that it is pretty silly to call someone irrationally afraid of walking about in a place filled with an armed population, and then aspouse a fear of a home invation by armed individuals in an unarmed population.

Who is really harbouring the more rational fear?

Perhaps we should all carry cyanide capsoles as well, incase we get kidnapped by terrorists, and are about to meet a gruesome death. We can take a painless way out.

"There, and everyone has the right to bear arms."

"Don't you think that will get misunderstood?"

"What are you talking about? It's quite clear. Everyone has the right to mount a pair of bear arms in their living room. Who could misunderstand that?"

678. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210221 by Mitchell Gilks on July 14, 2008 at 5:43 am

15. Comment #210144 by clearmind

That definitely was a "tale". I can't argue with that.

Well, if letters could survive, and have offspring letters, and all the evidence supported the idea that there was "letter evolution" then I'd agree that there was. Though your analogy is clearly foolish. By your logic, cake isn't edible because rocks aren't.

You can't just claim, by analogy, that X isn't true of A because it isn't true of B. You need to demonstrate why X must be true for B if it is true for A. Otherwise you're just talking nonsense.

What is "memesis"? Are you trying to conjugate "meme"? Or is that suppose to be a pun on like "nemesis" or something? Even if I assume either of the options I offered I still can't make heads of tails of that part. Also, "the ancestor of each other" that is logically impossible. That is equivolent to saying "you are my grandfather, and I am your grandfather". Maybe if time travel were involved...

Atheism isn't trying to do anything. You need to look up the word.

What's the difference between clearmind and hitler? Hitler killed people, and clearmind kills the english language, coherence, and intelligibility.

679. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210166 by Mitchell Gilks on July 14, 2008 at 3:24 am

639. Comment #210161 by Dr Doctor

You're clearly arguing past me. I don't give a rat's ass about their insane beliefs, nor do I respect them. You seem to be conflating respect of individuals with respect for their beliefs and ideas.

I thought that I explained the difference with my bonzai tree example. I never advocated treating any subjects with kid gloves, or undue respect. Care you point to me saying anything remotely like that?

Lastly, you clearly are not interested in having a constructive conversation if I blatantly, and unequivocally stated that I didn't know what you meant by "reality bubbles" and so forth if you just tell me in so many words that you don't give a shit, and keep on using the expression without any attempt to explain.

680. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210132 by Mitchell Gilks on July 14, 2008 at 1:35 am

636. Comment #210127 by Dr Doctor


Now I haven't a clue what you're talking about. I'm uncomfortable talking about "different realities".

I don't have to adopt someone's beliefs or opinions in order to act considerately about the fact that they hold them.

If you have a roommate that has a bonzai tree that they love, and talk to, and act pretty weird around. You don't need to harbour equivolent feelings to avoid stepping on it, or to be careful around it. You are being considerate to your roommate, not the tree.

681. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210123 by Mitchell Gilks on July 14, 2008 at 1:14 am

632. Comment #210117 by Dr Doctor

Oddly, theists do tend to talk about "ultimate" and "transcendant" realities...so I think it would depend on who you're asking. It would also depend on what you mean by "reality". Because when theists start talking about "different realities" I haven't the foggiest what they mean.

In any case, you post seems to imply that it is a truism that they are wrong about the transubstantiation, and you are right. That your views are inside the "reality bubble" and theirs are not. That this does not need to be argued for.

In which case, I think you are just making Steve's point for him.

682. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210119 by Mitchell Gilks on July 14, 2008 at 1:07 am

631. Comment #210116 by Brian English

The person making the statement decides whether it is question begging or not, not the people reading it. As I said, unless his intent was to convince, and form an argument, rather than merely make a statement with no intention of convincing, or of it being taken as an argument, then it was not begging the question.

Other people don't decide the intention of your words, you decide that.

683. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #210111 by Mitchell Gilks on July 14, 2008 at 12:35 am

58. Comment #210062 by mordacious1

Well, I wont be going to an art univerity, just an art college. I know of a nice little ghetto one that floods in the spring! Seems perfect for me.

The same one my brother is attending right now. He just graduated from his first year, he is taking pottery next year. Though he is thinking of getting into the sciences, because his friend, and roommate is taking microbiology, at the UNB (university of new brunswich.) I once worked there as a janitor, I was younger than the students.

I've considered taking philosophy before, or psychology. Though they don't interest me nearly as much as art goes. I just want to get into something that I won't just consider a pay-check, or hate ten years down the road.

I only get the one life, so I wanna enjoy it.

684. France rejects Muslim woman over radical practice of Islam

Comment #210109 by Mitchell Gilks on July 14, 2008 at 12:23 am

77. Comment #210085 by ralphj

She has lived in France for eight years, that's hardly an "instant". Besides, maybe wearing a burka is like smoking a ciggarette! Instantly habit forming! :p

685. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210102 by Mitchell Gilks on July 13, 2008 at 11:43 pm

626. Comment #210094 by Brian English

I think that he was writing on his blog, for those that read his blog, and he may have even meant to tell catholics that they were crazy. Though unless he meant his statement to be taken as anything other than an assertion, I don't think he was begging the question.

This reminds me of that recent talk with Richard Dawkins and Stephen Pinker, when the questioner said that Richard seemed to be begging the question in his talk, constantly assuming religion was wrong. He rightly pointed the man toward his book, where he made his arguments. Though in this talk, his point was not meant to argue people or convince people of that particular position.

Likewise, it would be tedious and boring if everytime everyone made a positive assertion, they tried to justify it, even when they are conversing with people that agree with them, or never meant it to convince people of the position in any case.

686. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210100 by Mitchell Gilks on July 13, 2008 at 11:38 pm

596. Comment #209980 by Steve Zara

I do share your concern, and I even more trouble that such irrational statements are uttered by those that fancy themselves rationalists.

Supposing P.Z. received one hundred death threats a day for the next five years, that is still under 2 million death threats, from a group that is like 1.3 billion strong. It would hardly be justified to call them are crazy maniacs. Yet P.Z. receives a hand-full of death threats, and people consider this enough to decided that all catholics are violent crazies. Calling this a hasty generalisation is flattering.

I also would like to mention that also I do largely agree that it takes irrational and absurd convictions to do get good people to do bad things, whether religious or not, I would like to point out that holding absurd and irrational convictions in no way necessitates that you will do evil things either. It is definitely a strong motivation, but it doesn't guarantee that you will act on those motivations.

Lastly, Steve. I hope this wasn't meant as an argument:

589. Comment #209964 by Steve Zara

Most people are decent, so most Catholics are decent.

687. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210092 by Mitchell Gilks on July 13, 2008 at 11:19 pm

601. Comment #209988 by MPhil

I don't think that this is begging the question unless you are attempting to convince, or form an argument. Not if you're just making a statement.

Statements are often not meant to be arguments, or convince people of anything. Unless P.Z. meant to convince catholics that transubstatiation was wrong when he said "It's a goddamn cracker" I don't think he is begging the question. That only applies to arguments.

When I say "Morinaga Milk is the best yuri mangaka there is" I'm making a statement, I'm not trying to convince anyone by it, and not meaning it to be taken as an argument. So I really don't think that you can say I'm begging the question. I'm merely calling it as I see it.

In short, I think that it is somewhat of a category mistake, to call every positive assertion begging the question, even when it was never meant to be taken as anything other than an assertion.

688. France rejects Muslim woman over radical practice of Islam

Comment #210049 by Mitchell Gilks on July 13, 2008 at 7:49 pm

69. Comment #209785 by tieInterceptor

This is however a massively politically, ethnically, and culturally charged issue. I say the above with somewhat of a heavy heart, as I do not see how such action could be carried out, without causing a rift, actual racism, violence, and other such public responses. I think that it is important to note that I am not talking about discrimination against muslims, I cam talking about adding tests to the immigation exams that involve basic human rights tenets, and so forth, and denying citizenship to those that fail, or perhaps are proven to not live up to them in practice.

I'm not going to defend this as a sunny, and easily swallowed proposal...but I really think that the alternative is much worse. This is a case of a two evils, and which we would rather live with.

689. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #210034 by Mitchell Gilks on July 13, 2008 at 7:29 pm

55. Comment #210014 by PristinePanda

It seems obvious and intuitive to me as well that this article is correct, however, I think that it is intellectually dangerous to let such a thing get in the way of actually checking. Many things that seemed obvious and intuitive to people in the past, have been shown to be completely wrong.

Everything needs to be actually looked into, if not at the very least to confirm our assumptions, though I don't think a mindset of confirming your assumptions is a productive one to have while doing science.

You get what I mean though, eh?

690. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #210033 by Mitchell Gilks on July 13, 2008 at 7:25 pm

49. Comment #209778 by mordacious1

I'd love to, but I'm poor. I also owe student loans. I need to pay them back before I can go to school again, and when I do, I have plans to go to art school.

My interest in academic endevours is limited to being a hobby. I can't seen my excersions into the academic world ever being removed from my armchair.

I'm still young though, maybe my goals will change.

691. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209759 by Mitchell Gilks on July 13, 2008 at 8:05 am

42. Comment #209751 by Bonzai

Sigh, just ignore me, I'm an idiot. I shouldn't be trying to figure this stuff out when I've been up for so long. I guess I found it difficult to sagway back into the actual subject, and was focused on the 100% probabolity thing. I wasn't thinking about the original point you were attempting to explain.

After going back and reading through you posts again. I think I may -- MAY -- understand what you are saying now. You are saying that a nonlinear system (which I take to mean is subject to future change, or does not carry constant values) is such that it is not only unpredictable to a great degree of accuracy in the short term, but as the time in which you try to draw predictions increases, your ability to predict decreases exponentially, until eventually it is analogous to your explaination? Am I even close?

692. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209749 by Mitchell Gilks on July 13, 2008 at 7:03 am

38. Comment #209746 by Bonzai

Yes, but the example you have was an abstraction. There is no chaotic systems in the world with an infinite number of possible outcomes, so it then would not "measure zero" would it? If there are only a finite number of possible outcomes (even if we don't know what they are, and can't calculate them) does that not mean that the same rules do not apply?

693. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209744 by Mitchell Gilks on July 13, 2008 at 6:52 am

36. Comment #209738 by Bonzai

I think I have somewhat of a grasp of what you are saying now.

Though I should have clarified ( and this is of course obvious, and I hope you won't take it as an insult to your intelligence) that things that are tautological are of course 100% certain. This appears to be such a case, to my uneducated eye.

Well I wasn't wondering if real numbers were "real" but I was wondering what they were, and was confused by the whole "between 0 and 1" thing until I looked up what they were.

694. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209732 by Mitchell Gilks on July 13, 2008 at 6:06 am

34. Comment #209730 by Bonzai

I have no idea what any of that means. I'm sure it's not easy to explain either...

(Also, I'm not a philosopher. I'm just someone who easily misunderstands, is easily misunderstood, for lack of clarify. States the obvious, and brings up irrelevent points, and opinions, making things needlessly complicated. Though I can see how you could confuse the two.)

695. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209728 by Mitchell Gilks on July 13, 2008 at 5:55 am

32. Comment #209724 by Bonzai

Yes, which is what I presupposed, and why I misunderstood you when you brought up 100% certainty. I had assumed that you just meant a high probabolity, because I do in fact consider it a truism that nothing is 100% certain, and such ideas are irrelevent at best, but I would say more illusory.

(Edit) I see you added. Well, if you look back. I didn't bring it up, nor did I push it. I think your frustation is at your own hand, not mine.

I merely explained the cause of my confusion, and then expanded on it when you didn't seem to understand what I meant. I did not attempt to tie it to the subject at hand, or claim it relevent to anything being discussed. It was meant to be a tangent (I stated "for the record" meaning, "it isn't really relevent, but I think I'll mention it anyway")

696. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209720 by Mitchell Gilks on July 13, 2008 at 5:11 am

27. Comment #209648 by Bonzai

All knowledge is at its roots, probabolistic. It is probabolistic in the sense that we assume that physics, and the world will behave today as it did yesterday. Each day it continues to behave as it did yesterday strengthens our assumption.

We have drawn the assumptions, and knowledge about physics, and all the roots of any scientific field probabolitically. They themselve may not be use probability, but their foundations are based on assumptions, that themselves are based on observation of past iterations of events.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that such assumptiong are not justified, or aruging against it (as some people do). Clearly you are more than justified believing that if you kick a dog it will yelp opposed to dancing a jig. This doesn't change the fact that your prediction of the dog's behaviour is drawn probabolistically, based on your knowledge of past iterations of similar events.

All knowledge can be reduced to this level.

697. France rejects Muslim woman over radical practice of Islam

Comment #209671 by Mitchell Gilks on July 13, 2008 at 1:21 am

54. Comment #209657 by Bonzai

But was that the reason for her being rejected, or was it her lack of knowledge of french values and culture? Insufficent assimilation, as they claimed.

698. France rejects Muslim woman over radical practice of Islam

Comment #209652 by Mitchell Gilks on July 12, 2008 at 11:59 pm

I support the banning of such things are head scarves and burkas in public institutions like schools and such. Dress codes of some kind are not new.

I also harbour a passionate dislike of the burka, and the situation this poor woman considers normal, as I've sure countless other women like her.

If this is about her knowledge of France, and it's values, then I agree that there was grounds to deny her citizenship. If this was because she wears a burka at home, and is completely subserviant to her husband and such, then I don't agree that was grounds to deny her citizenship.

This article doesn't offer enough information for me to decide which is the case.

I think though, however horrible, there is something to be said about denying the citizenship of people that threaten to change society for the worse, because of cultural or religious ideas. If, as some of these european country have to worry about, as I understand, there is a threat of the majority becoming muslim because of imigation, and they had sufficient grounds to believe that this would cause the institutionalizing of misogyny, or other human rights violations, then I do think that it is important to take preventative measures.

699. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209647 by Mitchell Gilks on July 12, 2008 at 10:55 pm

25. Comment #209646 by Bonzai

Oh yes, with 100% probability, I agree that it almost certaintly can't be done. We can predict that a six sided die will land on one side 1 out of 6 times it falls, on average, but I don't believe it is possible to predict with accuracy specifically when each side will turn up.

Though, for the record. I consider all knowledge to be probabolistic. So I reject ideas of certainty off the get go. I misunderstood you as saying that it couldn't be done with a high statistical success rate.

700. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209644 by Mitchell Gilks on July 12, 2008 at 10:48 pm

23. Comment #209642 by Bonzai

Although I agree that free will is a red harring in this case, I'm not sure that I can endorse the rest.

I agree that we can't predict the weather, or other deterministic system, but I don't think it follows to "we can't predict deterministic system A, therefore we can't predict deterministic system B".

You seem to be saying that all deterministic systems are in pinciple, and fundamentally unpredictable. I can't even endorse that about the weather. It may be true, I don't know, but I don't think that it follows from the fact that we can't currently predict it, that it is impossible.

There disagreement of mine is also largely a red harring. I don't think that it matters whether we could come up with a statistical figure that said that a person with a such and such a brain scan has a 98% chance of becoming a criminal to lock them up preemptively. They have no committed a crime, and statisitics are hardly something that can't be violated.

We are then not protecting society, we are punishing civilians for having a certain brain scan result.

What I would be willing to endorse, and I am wondering if you would as well, though this is a rather unrealistic, and si-fi example. If, say they checked infants brains in the hospital, for defects, that they could correct, in perhaps the distant future. If there were indeed a defect that caused someone to lack empathetic faculties, and they could correct this in the infant. I would completely endorse doing so.