801. 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.

802. 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.

803. 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.

804. 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.

805. 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.

806. 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.

807. 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.

808. 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.

809. 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.

810. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

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

Does my avatar count as zoophilia?

811. 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.

812. 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.

813. 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.

814. 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.

815. 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.

816. 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.

817. 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.

818. 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.

819. 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.

820. 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.

821. 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*)

822. 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.

823. 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.

824. 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?

825. 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.

826. 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.

827. 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.

828. 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?

829. 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?

830. 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?

831. 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.

832. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187605 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 10:56 am

455. Comment #187602 by Colwyn Abernathy

Yes. It is a fan art depiction though, they don't actually wear those outfits in any of the media. Though Utena's (pink hair) is quite similar to the one she wears in the movie.

Utena is an aspiring prince, looking to rescue some princesses, and Anthy is looking to get rescued.

I just like girls in suits that kick ass. There is a 6 OVA yuri series going right now (4 are out, 5th one is out next week I believe) with a hot lesbian who wears a suit and kicks ass called "Mnemosyne". She is an immortal detective. Each episode takes place ten years apart from the last. The first one took place in 1990 I believe. It's a great series.

833. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187600 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 10:50 am

450. Comment #187593 by mordacious1

I'm an aspiring mangaka myself, but I'm terrible. I'm saving up to go to art school, I need to pay off my current student loans before I can get another one. So I'm going to try to get into translating for awhile, once I improve my Japanese.

834. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187587 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 10:31 am

445. Comment #187585 by Colwyn Abernathy

This thread was never originally about what they are discussing anyway, and it has degrated into pretty silly mud-slinging. I think our exchange was the most productive one for pages.

Besides, I took his ignoring of all of my points as concession. Victory was mine long ago.

835. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187582 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 10:25 am

439. Comment #187572 by Colwyn Abernathy

Oh I didn't give any of the plot or story away, and it isn't as if Yoruichi is a self-professed lesbian, that is merely my conclusion. I gave nothing about the plot or story away in the least and the clip is just a thirty second one of Yoruichi displaying her awesomeness, it has no real relevence to anything. No one even speaks in it.

Utena, I watched the movie first. They anime and the movie are sufficiently different that the movie doesn't give anything away. It is basically two different tellings of the same story, with completely different endings, and completely different stories and plots. The character personalities and dispositions, the location, and the order of the duels I think is the same, and that is about it. They are both surrealist though, so they are mind fucks. Lots of crazy incomprehencible shit happening.

836. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187574 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 10:20 am

437. Comment #187568 by Appleby

Otherwise, you're probably just too stupid to understand English

837. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187567 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 10:17 am

435. Comment #187566 by Colwyn Abernathy

Check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR77Xi2-D_M

838. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187562 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 10:09 am

425. Comment #187550 by Colwyn Abernathy

I like Inoue, personally. Adorable to a fault, red hair, and a killer rack. ;P

839. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187555 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 10:00 am

habeas corpus

840. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187546 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 9:49 am

418. Comment #187540 by Colwyn Abernathy

Bleach is good. It has some yuri in it. Yoruichi is a lesbian. One of my favorite characters in anime too. Also I just love the incredibly adoribly butch Rukia. She's so tiny and masculine. I just wish Yoruichi was in it more often.

my current avatar is from one of Ruri Hozuki and Sakura Shio short mangas. They take internationally famous fairytales and yuri them up. They say that after reading all the worlds fairytales, they realised that like 90% of them were actually yuri! lol.

This is the one I extract my avatar from:

http://www.yurizuki.net/riding_hood.html

841. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187537 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 9:34 am

413. Comment #187532 by Colwyn Abernathy

That was Utena and Anthy from "Revolutionary Girl Utena".

Awesome anime, though the movie was better. That picture was as they appeared in the movie. The anime is rather old, one of the very first yuri animes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IcP8VBBBJ0

842. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187530 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 9:30 am

Like my avatar by the way? Little red riding hood is about to get eaten by the wolf! Oh noes!

843. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187524 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 9:25 am

405. Comment #187517 by Appleby

This is an attempted dodge. Show me where my points were made and then refuted by you?

407. Comment #187520 by Appleby

Where did I quote you? I said that you suggested this. I didn't claim you used those words, but you clearly did suggest this.

Quit dodging, and actually back up your assertions, and stand by the positions you profess one second, and then deny the next.

844. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187519 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 9:23 am

403. Comment #187515 by Appleby

You haven't given even the slightest reason to suppose that there is a "risk" this is yet another demonstration of the prejudice you keep displaying, and then promptly denying.

845. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187516 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 9:21 am

396. Comment #187504 by Appleby

I've read them all, assertions are not demonstrations.

400. Comment #187508 by Appleby

Bullshit, you suggested the segregation of homosexuals into ghettos, that is a denial of ones rights to live where they choose, and not be singled out and treated differently. It is a suggestion of inequity.

846. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187510 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 9:16 am

The points about continuation of the species is moot for several reasons.

One: men are no longer even required for this, resent technology allows synthetic sperm to be fabricated from bone marrow, so two women can now have children. Though because they both lack a "X" chromozome, they can only have girls.

two: we are appraoching a population crisis, if anything the best thing for the survival of the species is less kids, more homosexuals.

three: homosexuals can still have children, they are not sterilized. Procreation is an argument for why people shouldn't be exclusively homosexual, it fails completely as an argument for why people cannot have sex with members of the same sex.

The disease thing is unrelated to homosexuality, and I agree that have sex with animals is wrong, but because it harms them, and they cannot grant consent. Not because of possible diseases. There are plenty of hetersexually transmitted diseases, and obvious reductio ad absurdum would be to suggest outlawing copulation all together, and using only artifical means to reprocreate. Sex is not a requirement. If you suggest not enguaging in the former for reasons of possibly disease infection, then the same reasoning should apply to the latter.

847. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187503 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 9:07 am

386. Comment #187489 by Appleby

Not in the least. It is a form of rape. Though I do happen to agree with you that you cannot consistently support the slaughter of animals, while opposing their rape. Rape is considered a lesser crime than murder when it comes to people, so it is inconsistent to play it that way. Rape is not ad bad as killing.

I however, as I mentioned earlier am a vegan, and I support neither.

It is however another red harring, which is all you seem to bring up. Unless you can demonstrate a harmful side-effect to homosexuality, for those involved, or others, then you cannot in any sense claim it to be a moral issue.

You have consistently failed to do nothing by offer empty hypotheticals, and baseless speculation in this regard.

848. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187488 by Mitchell Gilks on June 2, 2008 at 8:29 am

299. Comment #187358 by Appleby

Where we always draw the line. When it is harmful to others, or accessively harmful to themselves.

849. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187299 by Mitchell Gilks on June 1, 2008 at 8:52 pm

Just tell her that you have forgotten more than she will ever know. Follow ups are then accounted for.

"Like what?"

"Didn't I just tell you that I forgot?"

850. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #187293 by Mitchell Gilks on June 1, 2008 at 8:21 pm

Well I don't see creationism, and other world problems to be unrelated. If you see things as I do, and as I think as Sam Harris advocates, then the basic source of all of these problems (which I think Quine did echo) is unreason. Short-sightedness, and willful ignorance. Personal incredulity, and the mindset of just believing what you would like to be the case.

I think that a problem, and a divergence of these issues only arises when you single any out, without appreciating their root causes.

I think that all of these economical, political, environmental, and religious problems can be reduced to willful ignorance, and unreason. That is what needs to be stifled. Taking things topic by topic, and problem by problem at a superficial level will do nothing. Even if individual problems are solved, new ones will inevitably arise from the same irrational and willful ignorant sources as the previous ones.

This needs to be addressed on a fundamental level. Suggesting we get rid of the only methodology that has worked, successfully allowing us to accumulate accurate and reliable information about the world, and elevate humanity out of ignorance with regard to numerous issues, is perhaps the worse idea I've ever heard for solving the problems.

What we need is for everyone to stop using science, knowledge, and technology only when it suits their desires, and ignore it when it doesn't.

What we need, is a rational and educated public majority.