751. 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.

752. 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.

753. 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.

754. 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.

755. 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.

756. 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).

757. 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.

758. 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.

759. 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.

760. 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

761. 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.

762. 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.

763. 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?

764. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188712 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 12:07 pm

They're friggin' everywhere.

765. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188695 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 11:52 am

My father just got his car back, after doing $8,400 in damages to it, yesterday ( 2007 Saturn Ion). He hit three deer on the way to work. Apparently five were crossing the road, he hit one head on, spun and side-swipped two more.

There are a lot of road-kill around here...disturbing thing that.

766. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188687 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 11:39 am

1099. Comment #188670 by al-rawandi

Holding views that are not consistent are not relevent to my arguments consistency. The inconsistency of my arguments would imply the hypocricy of my views, but not necessarily visa versa. That would need to be argued for independently.

Yes, I am telling them that they cannot persue lifestyles that cause others harm and sufferage. We do it all the time as a society. In fact, that is usually the sole grounds for doing so.

I haven't outlined my moral system, so it is hardly justified to call it arbitrary. How would you know? Because you don't agree with the conclusions I've drawn from it, it therefore must be arbitrary?

You must not have read what I said to Anna.

Would it be ok to regulate human populations like that? Where is the consistency there?

So kill all the deer to avoid the possibility of car accidents? Isn't that like pulling all your teeth to avoid cavities?

Just as applyby went to go "enjoy (vaginal) sex with his girlfriend."

There is no need to be unnecessarily juvenile, or confrontational. I'm the one thinking the activity is immoral and you're taking all the offence.

767. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188674 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 11:24 am

1098. Comment #188669 by mordacious1

I'm teaching myself Japanese at the moment. After listening to it all day for the last ten years or so I figured it would be relatively easy for me to pick up, and it is.

The writing system is what I'm spending most of my time on, out of the 2000 joyo kanji, I have 800 learned. Once I am proficient enough at in (in a few months hopefully) I plan to look for some translating work.

The internet is great for everything. I have a program that allows me to write in Japanese, with my keyboard, I picked up some stickers for my keyboard too. There are programs that you can get to voice chat with people, to improve my spoken Japanese.

Since I have an affinity for logic I am picking up the logic the japanese language uses rather quickly.

I find that the most noticable problem people demonstrate when learning another language is proper appreciation of the logic the language uses. They seem to have good vocabularies, but their word structure is all messed up. This is because of the fatal flaw of intuition. Intuition is an awesome mental facuality. Only 10% of our actions reach conscious awareness, the rest are preprogrammed from prior actions. What this means if people get an intuitional feeling for grammer structure based on their native language, which poisons their ability to properly form sentences in the new language. The best thing you can do is completely ignore your gut feelings, and make sure to think through everything. You will then quitely train yourself to appreciate the logic of the new language, and won't have a pre-trained intuition to contend with.

If you have intuitional feelings about something you are completely ignorant about, this is a sign that you are unconsciously drawing fallacious inferences from things you do know.

This is at least how I see it, and might just be that afforementioned narsissism kicking in.

768. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188668 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 11:11 am

1096. Comment #188667 by hungarianelephant

I thought that I demonstrated my answer with a reduuctio ad absurdum? Did you not think those examples absurd? Well I do.

Reductio ad absurdums have got to be my favorite form of argument. They quickly and easily demonstrate problems in reasoning if absurd conclusions can be derived from them.

769. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188665 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 11:07 am

1092. Comment #188662 by mordacious1

Heh, I'm a high school drop out, so I wouldn't know what they offer. I quite school at 16, and got an equivolency at 19. I'm almost entirely autodidactic. I just read a lot. Thank science for the interweb.

770. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188663 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 11:04 am

1091. Comment #188660 by annabanana

I understand that he said it was necessary for building musle, thus my retort, and explanation to why that wasn't relevent to the ethicality of it.

If it is an absolute necessity for your existence, then no. Though only because it is a clash of suffering, where the greatest amount of over-all suffering would win out. I wouldn't then consider it moral to kill and eat animals, but I would consider it justified. Just as killing someone in self-defence is not moral, but it is justified.

Though I would not consider it justified to not appreciate the level of suffering that goes into the aquisition of those proteins, and to not exaustively look for alternatives. If not can be found then aquiring animal flesh through the most humane means possible would be favorable.

I don't suggest anything unreasonable, I just suggest an evaluation of the situations, and a intellectual, and rational look at the level of suffering to pay off ratio for actions. Often suffering and killing is not avoidable, be it person or animal, that doesn't mean it always isn't avoidable, or that it is always the best choice.

Though this is hypothetical, I am unaware of a single protein that cannot be aquired through other means. Animals are merely the easiest way. A cost ratio would be relevent. Many may not be able to reasonably afford it, but that is another issue.

771. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188658 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 10:51 am

1088. Comment #188652 by hungarianelephant

Do you consider that non-existent things have rights? Desires? Can suffer? Do you consider it an ethical issue at all to kill a potential person? Masturbating, abortion, stem-cells; what have you?

Shouldn't we also make sure every person is bore despite whatever ends may await them?

Those are two seperate questions:

1. Do non-existent/potential individuals enter into ethical considerations, and if so, why and how so?

2. Is making sure these potential individuals get to exist top priority, and trump whatever ends may await them?

Your answers should be analogous to both potential humans and non-humans alike.

772. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188647 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 10:27 am

1084. Comment #188642 by al-rawandi

The complete context of your original post was irrelevent. Epeeist responded specifically to your claim that it is necessary, and rightly corrected you, to say that it was not is. He then went on to develope it further into an ethical context.

Of course, I'm quite sure that you are a moral pervert for comsuming animals within my moral framework. Lead me down a slippery slope fallacy don't you mean? Though supposing you did prove I was a hypocrite, that would be an argumentum ad hominem, and would in no way invalidate any argument I may put forward. You would only then be able to say "ha ha, you're a hypocrite."

A if a child rapist tells you that raping children is wrong it in no way makes that not true all because they are a hypocrite.

1086. Comment #188644 by hungarianelephant

Apply the same reasoning to abortion.

773. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188638 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 9:44 am

1071. Comment #188629 by al-rawandi

I don't know why you like to point at my like of anime as if you are insulting me. It seems like a form of projected egotism. You must not like it, or would consider it insulting so you project this opinion onto me.

Anime and manga are my favorite things in the world. I am in fact planing to go to art school and persue a career as a mangaka. It is plainly idiotic to suppose I would find something like that insulting, and merely shows juvenile projection of your own values as if I should share them.

You claimed both that eating animals was necessary, and that "that vegetarian thing is nonsense" to epeeist, who explicated a moral context to it. You then went on to talk about body building and such as if this erodes the moral foundation of vegetarianism.

At best you brought up a non-sequitur without a point in the middle of a discussion on various ethical issues. Don't blame me for assuming your comments were attempted to be relevent to the context.

Besides the fact that I asked at the very beginning "how is this relevent?" A simple "it's not" what have sufficed.

774. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188619 by Mitchell Gilks on June 4, 2008 at 9:24 am

981. Comment #188509 by al-rawandi

How is that in any way relevent to the ethicality of eating animals? Or for its necessity?

It fails horribly for both, first and formost because you outright admit it isn't necessary. Secondly it is ripe for reductio ad absurdum.

If eating tortured orphans was the best source of protein, and would make body building easier would it then be ok? How is that relevent to the ethicality? Or less absurd, if you have one hundred people, and only one hundred meals a day. Clearly the even distrabution is one meal per person per day. Is the fact that you personally will be better off with three meals a day an argument for why it would be ethical for you to deprive two people per day of meals so you could have three?

In what sense is saying that you would be better able to build musle if you eat animals an argument for it's ethicality exactly? That is easily an argument for a motivation for why you might want to do it, but are you going to suffer, or be in distress more than the animals that supply that protein if you can lift a few less lbs? In what way is the suffering greater if you can't achieve your dream physique?

Anyone can argue for why they might want to pertake in just about any immoral act, that is in no way an argument for why it would then not be immoral.

775. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188322 by Mitchell Gilks on June 3, 2008 at 10:46 pm

There are ups and downs to women with experience, and women with none.

The ups with women with none is of course, if you're terrible in bed, they won't know. That shyness and tentativeness can be cute, and of course bragging rights (them being tighter isn't necessarily true, it depends on how physically fit they are).

The upside of women with experience is that if you are good in bed, they will know it. They are a lot more confident, and the sex is more enjoyable as you get used to each other a lot more quickly.

I personally don't mind being compared to other guys, as I mentioned earlier, I'm rather narsisstic, and am confident in my abilities (mostly because I actually do my home-work, as it were, while most guys do not.)

The down sides, the first time with a virgin is extremely unpleasant (at least for me). They don't enjoy it. It's awkward and uncomfortable for them, which inturn makes me feel awkward and uncomfortable. They're stiff and nervous...it's an ordeal. What makes me enjoy it is them enjoying it...if they aren't enjoying it I am extremely turned off. I'd rather masturbate than have sex with someone who wasn't enjoying it. It gets better with time, but it sucks for awhile before it gets enjoyable.

With someone with experience...well, I can't really think of anything I would consider a down side. If you are afraid of them having diseases you can demand they get tested for stuff (of course offering to get tested yourself). What else is there? I guess if you're terrible in bed, they will know it.

776. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188316 by Mitchell Gilks on June 3, 2008 at 9:54 pm

836. Comment #188314 by Cartomancer

I'm interested in those as well. I feel sorry for people that have sexual fetishes that they cannot ethically bring to fruition.

Perhaps someday with the right technologies people can fulfill their desires in computer generated 3D worlds that hook right up to you brain.

I don't know what would cause someone to have a fetish like children, non-human animals, or non-consentual sex with adults. Or other things that they would find difficult to find someone willing to proform for them, but I think they need to be helped in someway.

It may not be possible to change their fetishes, so I think that allowing them to be fulfilled in a virtual world is a viable solution.

I've read that 80% of pedophiles never actually attempt to rape children. A study that measured the reaction of a males genetals to pictures showed that close to 80% of males were capable of being arosed by girls under the age of 12. With the age of marrying off a girl being 12 in a lot of cultures, this is not surpizing, but I do find it disheartening.

I don't think that they are bad people for being arosed by such things. Their actions dictate what I think of them, not their thoughts.

777. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188311 by Mitchell Gilks on June 3, 2008 at 9:21 pm

834. Comment #188309 by Cartomancer

I've had the pleasure of discussing the issue in some length before with a zoophile who claimed to regularly engage in sexual activity with his female Labrador.

The arguments in favor of it parrallel quite well to the arguments of a pedophile.

The major issues are consent, power-distrabution and harm. If someone wants to let their male dog go to town on them, then all the power to them. Most mammals species however for females have seasonal mating, and engaging in sexual activity with them durring off seasons is unavoidably painful for them.

Then there is the completely lop-sided power distrabution in the relationship. Even greater than employee, employer, or student, teacher. A pet is far more like a child, that looks to you for everything, and is not in a position to reject your advances. Especially a dog, that would let you do just about anything to it, even if it hurt, because of the position it sees you in. The completely unequal power distrabution of the relationship makes an fair, and mutually beneficial relationship impossible. Thus the relationship is unethical for that reason alone. Even if they could give consent it would be considered unethical in human relationships with an uneven power distrabution.

Then it comes down to the consent issue, and the arguments for animals offering consent are exactly analogous to the examples, and arguments pedophiles present.

In the very best possible scenerio, it is statutory rape. Though more realistically, the animals never have a say at all, and it is plain ol'rape.

778. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188307 by Mitchell Gilks on June 3, 2008 at 8:54 pm

830. Comment #188291 by Cartomancer

While I agree with you completely that zoophilia is not an orientation, but rather a sexual pathology, or fetish, that is either hetero, homo or bi, I still don't understand how a case can be made that killing is just fine while having sex with them is not.

You said before that killing animals is a requirement, or a need, but it very much is not. It is a desire, because eating animals is enjoyable for many, it is not a necessary thing. I have done just fine without it for over two years, and so have many others. People eat meat because they enjoy it, not because they require it.

I don't want to argue this point with you, because it is neither the time nor the place, but I feel that your position would be flawless if you were to avoid this issue altogether. It is a red harring.

Also, Neanderthals went extinct only 30 thousand years ago, and a hybred skeleton of a 4 year old showing features of both homo sapiens and neanderthals was found that suggests offspring were possible. The recently discovered homo florensiensis from the evidence we have only went extinct 12 thousand years ago as a result of volcanic activity, along with a few other species. They may have been genetically similar enough to produce offspring.

It is also not true that species is seperated by if they can or can't interbreed. It is cut off at populations that don't interbreed with other populations, not necessarily can't. Many animals that are considered seperate species actually can produce offspring if made to mate though trickery (insects fooled by pharemones and songs of their own species) or artifically inseminated. The hybred the "safari cat" is produced by mixing a domesticated cat with a wild cat that doesn't even have the same amount of chromosomes. First generation males are extremely rare, and the ones that are born are almost always steral. Though the females are fertile.

The species distinction is a hard line to draw, there is still plenty of debate on where it is best drawn. For pragmatic purposes (because drawing it at genetic differences would require a complete genome of all species) it is normally drawn at populations that have distinctive features, and do not naturally interbreed with other populations in the wild.

779. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188251 by Mitchell Gilks on June 3, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Does my avatar count as zoophilia?

780. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188249 by Mitchell Gilks on June 3, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Glorious. Appleby, I hope you will consider the hypothesis you tested as being falsified by the reactions of the posters.

I am personally extremely pleased that the evidence was resoundingly, and uniformly negative. Clearly since you have left us, the result did have an effect on you. If you are an intellectually honest person, you will need to take your test seriously, and honestly consider that your assumption was indeed false.

I am proud that the response was uniform, and no one spoiled it.

781. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187856 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 9:41 pm

575. Comment #187853 by mordacious1

I'd also make a horrible parent. I'm lazy, facetious, condescending, narsisstic, moralizing, and a bit of a prick. I'm also obsessive, self-involved and inconsiderate. Kids also hate me, so it's a mutual dislike.

My world revolves around me, and that is the way I likes it. Maybe someday I'll grow up and change my opinions, but as it stands I'm quite pleased with things the way they are.

782. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187849 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 9:14 pm

572. Comment #187847 by Cartomancer

I often think that about the world too. For all it's problems, I am extremely happy to be alive today, and not even ten years ago... one hundred years ago would suck so hard.

I also share you sentiments about children. Having six siblings has left me with a deep dislike of children. I have no plans of ever having any of my own.

783. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187835 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 8:04 pm

561. Comment #187815 by Cartomancer

That was a riot, and a true pleasure to read. Made my day.

784. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187747 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 2:04 pm

550. Comment #187745 by Elli

That isn't actually the case. Near the beginning of the thread he stated that he believed white people to be superior to other races. He is also a racist.

785. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187739 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 1:48 pm

What a stupid bastard-face. I am extremely offended by such a condescending prick attitude toward Elli because she is female. This has earned you a spot on my perminent ignore list.

Elli is quite clearly an intellectual giant compared to you (saying this is almost an insult to Elli, to even attempt a comparison with such lowly scum. Sorry Elli.) and is superior to you in every quality I value most.

I'm sure you don't need my defence, or need anyone stating such obvious things to you Elli, but his comment disgusts me. I just thought I'd state that there is no question in my mind who is the superior individual, with regard to all of the qualities I hold in high regard.

786. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187703 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 1:17 pm

518. Comment #187700 by Appleby

It's by no means a preconception, it is the only thing you have successfully demonstrated.

787. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187694 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 1:10 pm

510. Comment #187691 by epeeist

The "negative proof fallacy" doesn't state that negatives cannot be proven. It is doing exactly what Applyby is doing now, saying because I cannot prove that there is no relevent difference, that there then must be. Taking the lack of disprove, as a proof in itself.

My position has been that there is no justification to assume either way without rational or evidentiary grounds. I also think that the evidence leans toward an assumption that there is no relevent difference.

When you lack evidence in either direction, the most rational thing to do is assume them are equal. Because that is the simplest explanation. If there is no readily distinguishable relevent difference, despite hard investigation, then there probably isn't one.

788. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187690 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 1:06 pm

505. Comment #187686 by Appleby

You are the one purporting the relevent difference. I am asking you to justify it. You are the one telling me to assume pink elephants on mars. I am asking you to justify the assumption that there are.

789. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187687 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 1:04 pm

492. Comment #187673 by noodly_noodleson

I don't know very much about it. Since only 1 million people speak Japanese has a second language, I figured there would be demand for it. Especially with all of the manga craze in the west now. Though I could be wrong, and my expectations are not very high.

790. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187682 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 1:00 pm

498. Comment #187679 by Appleby

(*sigh*)

Clearly there is no further point to this. You have been thoroughly vangished. Away with you now.

Just for fun: Orangutan's cannot support the shelter schooling or medical care that humans can.

Now you give a relevent difference between homosexual parents and heterosexual parents please?

(*rollseyes*)

791. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187677 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 12:54 pm

491. Comment #187671 by Appleby

Puh-leeze. Firstly, you came on this thread, and you brought it up. Secondly rules of parimony and occam's razor dictates that you assume all things are equal until given justification to assume otherwise. These are exceptually well supported methods of investigation.

Thirdly, as explained, in a scientific mode of thought, the negative is assumed, and the hypothesis is then attempted to be falsified. If it cannot be falsified, then you continue to attempt to until the data collected justifies acceptance. Not the other way around.

I am using a skeptical and scientific mode of thought by assuming the negative until the positive has support. This is why science works. It is religion that assumes the positive, and attempts to compile data to support their presuppositions.

Fifthly, by suggesting that homosexuals shouldn't be as freely to adopt, you have purported a relevent difference, and then of course must support it with secular justification. That is how society works.

792. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187668 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 12:43 pm

487. Comment #187665 by Appleby

I already claimed victory, this was just over-kill.

793. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187666 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 12:42 pm

I'm always amazed when I meet atheists that invoke the same types of fallacious reasoning for their arguments that theists use for god. Why are you an atheist? Why are you not convinced by such reasoning when applied to a diety?

794. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187664 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 12:39 pm

483. Comment #187659 by Appleby

Unless you are saying that children should be raised by heterosexual parents because this is more natural then the point is just irrelevent and a non sequitur. What's the point of even mentioning it then?

I specifically said already that I was not saying that there is no difference, what I said is that there is no reason to assume different is bad. That is irrational.

No, I am not using the negative proof fallacy. That would be if I said that the fact that you can't prove something proves it's negative, I have not even remotely said that. What I have argued is that there is no rational or evidentiary reason to assume what you are assuming.

And there is no more reason to assume what you are assuming is true, than to assume that the opposite is true. No where did I deny it's possibility, or say it was proven fact.

I don't need to prove negatives, it is up to you to prove positives. Your assertions can just be dismissed without backing. I need not disprove them.

795. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187652 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 12:23 pm

473. Comment #187640 by Appleby

As I mentioned, two women can have "real biological children" now. So that point is both inaccurate and moot because what is "normal" or "natural" is not necessarily good.

Why can't we ignore that fact? Why is is relevent? You just keep asserting that it is, and there is all this risk that you can't quantify, or even remotely gesture towards.

You clearly just don't like homosexuals. This is the only rational conclusion. Someone who argues against something yet cannot provide and evidentiary or rational grounds for doing so clearly must have emotional, or irrational grounds for doing so. There are no other forms of motivation.

796. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187638 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 12:06 pm

471. Comment #187635 by Appleby

Why is homosexuality a factor? Why must it be accounted for? In what sense, and to what ends? Do you not understand my question? You keep just assuming that the risk is higher with homosexual parents, and is it impossible that heterosexuality is somehow detrimental? Why is this impossible? What is your reason to assume that a the parents sexuality is a factor only if homosexual?

How is that assuming things are equal? That is quite clearly assuming things are not equal.

Appealing to biology or nature is the naturalistic fallacy. Which you have already called someone on, so I am disappointed to see you enact it here.

797. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187630 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 11:58 am

466. Comment #187627 by Appleby

(*sigh*) Are you so scued? A possible of psychological damage due to heterosexual parents, in a heterosexual home. Not due to homosexuals parents, but due to heterosexual ones.

What reason do you have to assume there is a higher risk of this with homosexuals than with heterosexuals?

798. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187622 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 11:47 am

462. Comment #187619 by Appleby

You're being irrational then. As I already mentioned, there is a possibility in a heterosexual home as well. What reason do you have to suppose the risk is higher?

Without justification what more reason do you have to believe that there is a possibility that the risk is higher of damage with homosexual parents than to believe that the risk is higher with heterosexual parents?

Using principles of parsimony and occam's razor. Assuming all things are equal, isn't the possibility of either scenero equally likely?

799. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187618 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 11:41 am

459. Comment #187616 by Appleby

No one has said there isn't possibly a difference. What they have said is that there is not a readily apparent difference, and there is no supporting evidence for a view that there is a difference. You are just going on an unjustified assumption that there is a difference.

Let me demonstrate this with a reductio ad absurdum. Is it impossible that british parents are better than american parents? That if you have american parents you are at a greater risk of physical or psychological damage? Does this mean we should stop allowing americans to have children? Because you can't show that this isn't impossible? Should we not avoid the risk?

Don't you think that such a difference needs to be demonstrated, and then the evaluated damage measured against the projected physical and psychological damage of alternatives? To see if even if a difference was proven, the damage of allowing them to raise children would be lower than not?

800. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187617 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 11:38 am

457. Comment #187610 by Appleby

There is risk of damage in any home. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the risk is higher with homosexual parents. You appear to just be taking this as a given. Why are you just assuming that the risk is higher? What is you basis for this?

Yes, you should expect to be asked for evidence when you are forwarding prescriptive opinions on what society ought and ought not allow. You cannot expect such things to be taken seriously let alone enacted if you can't give even the slightest reason to think your assertions are even remotely plausible, let alone justified.