901. Animal Science Without Evolution

Comment #184740 by Mitchell Gilks on May 26, 2008 at 5:07 am

[This book is] written at a level that kids can understand.

...

...

...

...

Yeah... I can't wrap my head around it, and I consider myself a pretty smart guy; so this I doubt. I think what it means is, that it is written in such a deceptive, and emotionally appealing way that you will be content in not actually understanding a damn thing.

902. How Are Humans Unique?

Comment #184524 by Mitchell Gilks on May 25, 2008 at 2:59 pm

15. Comment #184470 by Bullet

How are we different? We have the ability to choose right and wrong. If an ape does something wrong, that ape will not know that, because it doesnt have the same ability.

I'm always completely blown away at a theists ability to assert something they have absolutely no way of knowing if true, as if it were indisputable fact. They just think that sounds rights, so they assert it as (pattern the expression) the lords truth.

I like to quote Lincohn in these situations "if you have stated something as truth, that you do not actually know to be truth, then you have lied, and being right by coincidence does not excuse you of this fact."

The sheer intellectual dishonesty of not admitting when you don't know something and just making stuff up you think sounds right and calling it true.

Now, my lecture is over, and I will say that this point is factually mistaken. All social animals have at least proto-ethical and moral structure, many complex. Through the spectrum of social animals ranging from chimps to rats, will starve themselves before taking food if it will result in another one receiving an electrical shock. Monkey's will share food after completing a task that required the help of other monkey even if only one monkey was rewarded. These are just a couple examples, but there is extensive evidence that other animals in fact do behave quite morally toward members of their societies (even examples of empathy toward organisms they don't know). It is merely an announcement of one's arrogance, intellectual dishonesty, and unappreciating for the level of one's knowledge to just ignorantly assert something.

This goes with evolution as well, a theory is an explanation or model that explains a body of facts. A theory is of course not a fact, because it is an explanation, and explanations are not facts. It is a fact that when dropped, objects are observed to fall towards the center of the planet, to explain this, is the theory of gravitation. It is a fact that we share a common ancestry with all life on earth, established beyond reasonable doubt by overwhelming fossil, genetic, geological, and biological evidence. The theory to explain this is Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection and spontaneous genetic mutation.

Read a book, and learn not to assert things you don't know to be true. That is speaking untruths, and you are conscious to the fact that you haven't studied the subjects and have not even a superficial understanding of them, so your ignorance is quite vincible, and you have no grounds for being excused from lying.

903. How Are Humans Unique?

Comment #184451 by Mitchell Gilks on May 25, 2008 at 10:05 am

Well reading this I felt like my intellect was being slapped across the face about every sentence. Though perhaps others don't realise this. It has always seemed obvious to me that we have only gotten anywhere because of our complex social interactions.

I once argued that you could have a specie with an intellect three or four times greater than a normal person's. They would definately solve problems faster, and probably be excellent at survival, but if they were a solitary species, without a social structure, then they would not be advancing in any technological sense. They would likely use pretty good tools that they invented themselves, but once they died that would be it. The next generations always start from scratch.

One of my favorite quotes, from Newton: "If I've been able to see further than most men, it's because I've stood on the shoulders of giants."

We are a collective, and we wield the knowledge and achievements of about a million years. Our technology, and rate of improvement has increased, exponentually correlating with our accuracy of taking records, and the growth and improvement of our societies, and our society's ability to communicate amongst itself, and with others.

We are billions of individuals capable of working intricately, and precisely as one. This is why we kick so much ass compared to every other animal.

904. The Faith of Flanders

Comment #184277 by Mitchell Gilks on May 24, 2008 at 9:19 am

I don't agree with people's opinions at all. Flanders only feigns good-natured, and loving and such (thus the episode about his brake down, and the reasons for his speach mannerisms). He is crippled from his traumatic childhood, and complete lack of order and structure that he has found a dictator, and system that he can structure his entire life around. He is compensating, and it isn't about god existing or not to him.

He is intellectually dishonest, not stupid, he ignores good points and evidence and ever burns, after accepting, Homer's disproof of god on the episode that he had it raised by fifty points, to an amazing 105. For many religious people, they are just stupid, but for many others, as Isaac Asimov (I believe it was him anyway) once said about pseudo-science "if you examine it deep enough, you will find a skirt to pull, or a thumb to suck."

I think that he perfectly matches such a religious person.

905. The Faith of Flanders

Comment #184275 by Mitchell Gilks on May 24, 2008 at 9:13 am

Ralph: "Are the oceans god's tears"?

(*Skinner looks to Flanders, Flanders nods*)

Skinner: "Yes, the oceans are god's tears."

(*Ralph points are Lisa*)

Ralph: "Now you're the Ralph, and I'm the Lisa."

906. Does Time Run Backward in Other Universes?

Comment #184215 by Mitchell Gilks on May 24, 2008 at 12:27 am

19. Comment #184213 by Christopher Davis

They aren't just watching the particles move, they are also measuring them with equipement, if it were moving at such high speeds, and back and forth, then the equipement would presumably notice. (I'm a uneducated layman, but I'm just harbouring a guess here.)

Personally, I haven't the foggiest what's going on, and wouldn't even dare guess. When they figure it out I'm looking forward to hearing about it.

907. Does Time Run Backward in Other Universes?

Comment #184214 by Mitchell Gilks on May 24, 2008 at 12:23 am

It's ten dimensions, and it makes a unifying equation of physics plausible, which only works with ten dimensions, it's all on paper, and has zero actual evidence to support it.

Who gives a shit if Hawkings believes it? Does he have evidence? Seems like a fallacious appeal to authority otherwise. "Look, this smart guy believes it, thus it must be true."

Dark energy is a proposed hypothesis to explain the expansion, and total mass of the universe, and does happen to have both support, and is falsifiable, so they are hardly in the same league. It also explains an observation, which string-theory does not, it explains an invented problem, and makes an equation work.

You seem to not understand the difference.

908. Does Time Run Backward in Other Universes?

Comment #184203 by Mitchell Gilks on May 23, 2008 at 11:05 pm

15. Comment #184202 by mordacious1

Years ago, everyone said that about black holes. Now they are accepted in the scientific community. I have to say though that multiverses will be harder to prove.

(*Sigh*) wouldn't this "argument" work equally well with any unfalsifiable or testable claim about the universe? When the hypothesis about black holes was not testable or falsifiable, it wasn't science either. Nor is this until a way to test or falsify it is forwarded. Until then, it's brain candy, nothing more.

And since this article contradicts things that are in fact supported by evidence, I'll accept the far more likely option, that this is bullshit.

Also, the whole "unnatural" claim; that is inherently impossible to falsify without omniscence.

909. Does Time Run Backward in Other Universes?

Comment #184201 by Mitchell Gilks on May 23, 2008 at 10:58 pm

They can't rule it out, that doesn't make it science. Just like ID this isn't even wrong it's useless. It can't be tested or falsified, that means it isn't science, and it claims things are unnatural.

Some cosmologists, maybe. I don't care.

910. Does Time Run Backward in Other Universes?

Comment #184197 by Mitchell Gilks on May 23, 2008 at 10:44 pm

This isn't science, this is a lump of steaming bullshit and absurdity. This doesn't even begin to make sense. I have never actually read about the whole idea of a multiverse, but if this article underpins it, then I completely agree that this is no different than theology.

Before the big bang? But if the prevailing view (that the big bang created space and time) is true, that is a nonsensical statement. The statement presupposes the truth of his ideas.

The universe started out orderly? As far as I understand it, the prevailing view is that the universe started out in a state of maxium entropy, the complete opposite. Not to mention that order and chaos are merely projections of our ability to draw links between the interactions of phenomena, and draw probabilistic conclusions based upon them. There is no fundamental difference between the two beyond our ability to predict.

Unnatural? Now that statement really takes the cake, does he pretend to a complete and absolute knowledge of nature? That he can then decide when something is comforming or not with it? Intuitively assuming this? Like creationists intuitively assume that life is inherently unnatural? Requiring a super intelligence to constitute? What charlatan nonsense.

This all aside, time is just a lable we give the motion of matter, it is relative to its movement. It isn't really a thing at all, I wasn't aware that there was a problem.

Seems like the problem of sin, requiring the cure of salvation.

This seems to be completely pulled out of someone's ass, and doesn't appreciate the prevailing views of cosmologists. Sounds like new age non-sense, with better use of scientific lingo. They can have it.

911. Five Things Humans No Longer Need

Comment #184196 by Mitchell Gilks on May 23, 2008 at 10:29 pm

I have perminant goosebumps, looks like my skin is rejecting the hair. I'm also very hairy, and multicoloured hair at that. All my hair is long, but widely spread. My hands and arms have blonde hair, my body dark brown hair, my head light brown hair, and I have red facial hair. Oh, and for some reason I have no hair on my legs below the knees, which is one of the only places where I don't have perminate goosebumps.

I wouldn't mind not having them. No tails or pointy ears, and to be honest I'm not sure about the wisdom teeth. I got some that came in about half-way awhile ago, but they don't bother me.

Waiting to evolve.

912. Six 'uniquely' human traits now found in animals

Comment #184106 by Mitchell Gilks on May 23, 2008 at 4:03 pm

That isn't saying much Simonw, that is true of all distinct species.

913. Six 'uniquely' human traits now found in animals

Comment #184098 by Mitchell Gilks on May 23, 2008 at 3:39 pm

I think that since evolution is a gradual process that it is foolish to think that we have any traits that are completely unique to us, and since evolution in no way has aimed for humanity, it is also foolish to think that all of these traits must be a degree less in other animals than humans. Beyond abstract thought, and intelligent, I do not think it is justified to think off the cuff that all of our traits are more intense than other animals.

More cognitive and intellectual abilities varies within the human species. Does emotioal ability, and personality traits also? I'm not so sure that they are linked. I am not sure if it is justified to assume that all such traits are contingent on ones cognitive abilities.

I am over the opinion that it is far more parsimonious and far more in conformity with evolutionary theory to assume that we have no, or at least very few completely unique traits. Also that all because we have some traits that are more developed does not imply that all of our traits are more developed. I see absolutely no reason why other animals couldn't possess more developed traits than humans. Seems like human narsissism to suppose otherwise.

914. Scientists discover 'frogamander' fossil

Comment #183822 by Mitchell Gilks on May 22, 2008 at 11:37 pm

All in due course. It will be learned that it descended from the crockoshit...

Excellent. Gave me a good laugh.

915. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #183818 by Mitchell Gilks on May 22, 2008 at 11:19 pm

37. Comment #183801 by Kristopher

But to say that everyone has thier beliefs or faith because they were born into it--is simply not true at all.

Well then, lets just be happy that no one said that. That would be a misrepresention, and thus a strawman. What he actually said was that people overwhelmingly have the religion of their parents. Which of course necessitates a minority to overwhelm, i.e. the coverted.

916. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #183817 by Mitchell Gilks on May 22, 2008 at 11:13 pm

I disagree with RD that there are no atheist children, it is not at all equal and opposite to theism. Under the definition I use, which is a lack of belief in deities, my cat is an atheist.

I've been a live-long atheist, despite being raised in a fundamentalist christian family, and have only met a couple other atheists personally in my life. Didn't even know of the word until I was like eighteen. I have never, at any time in my life harboured a believe in a deity. I went through the motions of closing my eyes and bowing my head during prayers for church surfices, and dinners. I remember attempting to pray when I was about 8 or 9 and feeling extremely silly talking to myself. I never attempted it again.

I can't say that I exactly believed "not god" until reading the bible at thirteen, but I never held a positive belief. The man asking the question say "a kid who did not believe in god" so I find that a perfectly uncontroversial statement. Without indoctrination of a belief in the proposition, a lack of belief should be the natural default.

917. Kenya mob reportedly burns 11 'witches'

Comment #183767 by Mitchell Gilks on May 22, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Sickening.

918. Scientists discover 'frogamander' fossil

Comment #183763 by Mitchell Gilks on May 22, 2008 at 6:41 pm

This is no frogamander! It's clearly a Salamog.

919. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183754 by Mitchell Gilks on May 22, 2008 at 5:59 pm

103. Comment #183724 by Ty_Webb

Mitchell Gilks

It's nice to be in agreement with you for a change ;)

Well you can't always be wrong, sometimes the universe throws one your way. ;D

920. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183715 by Mitchell Gilks on May 22, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Dickins, both a sperm and a fully formed fetus have precisely the same "potential" a flake of skin is a "potential" person. There is no grey area between potentials.

Nova, I also very much base my decision on on such matters on suffering, but yours seems knee-jerk and short sighted. How exactly are you reasoning that no matter the situation, the moment the fetus is capable of feeling pain the decision that would offset the most over all suffering is to allow the fetus to survive?

You may have more than suffering as a reason for this, but if you chock it up to purely suffering, then I don't see how such a position is even remotely tenable.

If I didn't know any better, I'd assume you have feelings of the "sancty of life" and the "inherent value to human life" which are not rationally defendable positions.

921. Edgar Mitchell ushers in the Next Epoch in Evolution

Comment #183342 by Mitchell Gilks on May 21, 2008 at 11:27 pm

Seems like I'm a little upity for a foggy. If I don't want to be misunderstand then I shouldn't be so damn foggy.

Shame on myself.

922. Edgar Mitchell ushers in the Next Epoch in Evolution

Comment #183340 by Mitchell Gilks on May 21, 2008 at 11:06 pm

Hey!! That's mine name!! I'm going to pretend that I'm being interviewed. Oh what fun, hope I'm not an idiot!

...Dr. Mitchell...

Sweet!

923. Lab agrees to test Shroud of Turin for new theory

Comment #183338 by Mitchell Gilks on May 21, 2008 at 11:00 pm

I don't know what the big deal is, if the Oxford lab says "lets test it" then let them. I have nothing to gain or lose. I don't really care about it. Even supposing they definitively proved that it was made from Jesus, without a doubt. All that would prove is that the guy existed, not that he had magic powers. It wouldn't even lend a ounch of credibility to the idea that he had magic powers.

Though, personally these two bits of information I think give strong cause to think that the first dating was accurate:

The first documented exhibition of the Shroud of Turin was in Lirey, France, around 1360...Researchers concluded the cloth was made between 1260 and 1390...

I think that the odds that a false dating correlates almost precisely with the date of the shrouds first known appearance is extremely small. It is far less likely that the dating was thrown by some contamainant serendipitously to that precise date, than that the date is accurate and matches with the time of its first appearance.

Though nothing can possibly be lost by allowing him to spend his life howling at this particular moon. To each his own. It isn't as if he could produce false data that would hold up to peer scrutiny, so I see no harm.

Besides that, I did find all of the whimsical speculation comical. It reminded me of an episode of Cosmos, about Venus, in where all people could see was a pure white thick atmosphere, and people concluded it was convered with dinosaurs.

924. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183323 by Mitchell Gilks on May 21, 2008 at 9:41 pm

Well, my moral compass only points south when pain and sufferage is prevailant. That being said, surely more suffering is delivered on the world (something both Harris and Dawkins suggest, and I think is reasonable) from the killing of an adult cow, than to the aborting of even a fully developed fetus. Being a vegan this argument doesn't readily convince me, though if you don't have a problem with the former than I see no rational grounds to contest the latter (and no, belief in some metaphysical specialness and difference between humans and other animals, or a magic human soul are not rational grounds).

I am won over by the suffering calculus. Surely it would generate more suffering in the long run for the greatest number of people to force a child on the world that is unwanted, or perhaps mentally or physically malformed. I would even support the termination of significantly physically or mentally malformed infants within a few weeks after birth. Whether they live or die there will be suffering delivered upon the world, I just don't see how one can make an argument that quickly and humanely ending their lives shortly after they have begun would result in more overall suffering for the parties involved than decades of a difficult and and high mantainance life that results in accessive strain and hardship for the family involved.

My two cents.

925. In God's Name

Comment #183316 by Mitchell Gilks on May 21, 2008 at 8:53 pm

For Christ's sake what now! Waiting until you're married to have sex? There's going to be a lot of 30 second consummations going on I tell ya. Or interior design television programs.
One thing's for sure, no body's going to be having good sex.

Indeed, and if your new spouse is horrible in bed, what then? Not that you'd know, being a virgin...I guess. Also, there are some girls that look a lot better with cloths on, and when you see them naked for the first time, it's...not as you imagined.

Without some trials runs you are trapped. Who buys a car before taking it for a test drive, or even looking under the hood?

926. In God's Name

Comment #183299 by Mitchell Gilks on May 21, 2008 at 7:21 pm

The way you fix the muslim birth rate problem is the same way it has been slowed in every other country; the emansipation of women. Once women are nolonger resigned to being baby mechines, and given control over their own reproductive system, their birthrate will greatly reduce, and become analoguous to the birthrates of cultures with gender equity.

I think that the most important fight right now, is to fight for the emansipation of women in islam. I see it as the turning point.

Education, and gender equity in poverty stricken african, indian, and south american countries is also a way to ensure that more aid allowing the sustainance of more individuals doesn't result in a population growth, and thus doesn't improve the the average quality of life. Which may be impossible for as long as women are resigned to being baby mechines.

927. Mayor challenges pope during Genoa visit

Comment #182561 by Mitchell Gilks on May 20, 2008 at 1:35 pm

The current law seems reasonable to me. I thought that it was the case that political bills require secular justification. After they show their claims about abortion replacing contraception (though they are against that too, so it seems like a moot point coming from them) and other such absurd claims, to be just that, absurd. Then the legal system should just ignore their rants and ravings, until they want to start legislating people's preferences. How many people do you think I would need on my side to ban onions? Damn I hate them so much.

Also I don't understand the logic of allowing abortion for incest and rape. Isn't that punishing the child for the parents' crimes? Besides, if it was ok to abort incestuous children, then those that believe in bible creation would have to concede that humanity would never have gotten started. We're all the product of incest according to that fable. Not that there is anything particularly wrong with incestuous relationships between consenting adults.

928. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182231 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 12:39 pm

(*Sigh*) I think I'm done playing with you. I didn't realise you were a theist.

"1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice."

Who's choice was it that cows and humans would be different exactly?

(*rollseyes*).

Anyway, I've spent enough time on this. Ja-ne.

929. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182227 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 12:35 pm

142. Comment #182226 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

Yes I perfectly appreciate this point. This does not make these actions right as these are obviously violations of personal freedom. I mean this must be implicitly obvious. That's like saying if you don't get caught it isn't a crime.

Then you concede that someone's obliviousness to their exploitation doesn't mean it is morally acceptable? So your point that it is ok to exploit cows because they can't grasp the fact that they are being exploited is disgarded?

930. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182225 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 12:29 pm

139. Comment #182223 by aleprechaunist

As long as you appreciate that you do so arbitrarily, and without rational justification. Then I can't stop you. That was a compelling enough reason for me. It distressed me that specieism is analguous to racism.

931. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182224 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 12:27 pm

What "kind" of self-awareness. I didn't know there were kinds. Please explain, it sounds like you are just inventing this.

I meant the fact that we have the capacities are arbitrary.

This is unintelligible. This is what arbitrary means http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary

932. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182221 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Date-rape doesn't necessarily cause harm. It doesn't necessarily cause physical harm, and if they don't find out about it, it doesn't necessarily cause mental harm. Taking naked pictures of children in provocative poses doesn't cause physical harm, and if they don't remember it, it won't cause mental harm.

I hope you appreciate this point. Swindling someone out of their time and money as religious charlatan's do does not cause physical harm, and if you never find out that it was a trick, it doesn't cause mental harm.

933. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182216 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 12:07 pm

83. Comment #182119 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

Yes we do exploit cows but I was making the point that cows do not have the capacity to feel exploited and that is a distinction between cows and humans

Are you now retracting this statement? I'm confused.

Though you are also wrong, cows are self-aware, all the higher mammals are. As well as many bird species.

Though the fact that you concede the distinctions you draw are abitrary than refer to it as a "moot point" ignores that is exactly what I have set out to demonstrate. Now it falls on whether you feel fine being just as rationally justified drawing moral lines where you do as a racist.

That seems like you oppose the research. Sorry if that was not your point.

I do oppose the research, for the reasons I explicated.

934. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182209 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 11:48 am

ToCT, I am not going to respond to your strawman, and your false analogy. Ants can't speak, cows can suffer. You say they can't know they are being exploited, so then it must follow that it is okay to exploit the unaware, whether they are human or not. I don't know how you can't grasp the problem with you objection, it doesn't appreciate either of these points.

Perhaps that apology was disengenuous. I still don't think I blunt the entire blame for that misunderstanding, and I hope that Clydey doesn't think I do either.

I realised that you never concidered my point of objection, which was my very reason for suggesting that it is far safer to be tentative in our assertions.

Actually I never made an argument against this artical, I was imidately challenged on the basic premises of my position, and I had to defend animal rights in a general sense, I never got the opertunity to argue against the artical, the points you raised I merely pointed out were fallacious. I never suggested that I thought that using cows in that way was unquestionably wrong in all situations.

Personally I just think that it is a quick fix that could likely be solved by better appeals for human eggs, and more insentives to donate them. If all else failed I would be willing to consider eggs procured from wild animals, but not animals kept for the sole purpose of harvesting their eggs. This would be easier than procuring eggs from wild animals, but it would cause unnecessary suffering for the price of cost and time, which I don't think is at all right. While suffering all around, between humans and non-humans could be augmented by a compromise in this way, that is if we couldn't generate sufficient insentive for human donations, which I think is possible to achieve.

935. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182205 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 11:35 am

It plainly is fallacious Clydey. Suggesting feeling more morally responsible to the same species because it is just natural, and a result of how we evolved, is likely true, that doesn't change the fact that it in no way suggests that it how we should continue to behave, or that it is therefore justified to behave that way. That would be the naturalistic fallacy.

I have said that it is not rationally justifiable to draw such distinctions. I am also concerned that people unfortunately do, but human beings are generally really bad at reasoning. It requires formalized and rigorous application of logically sound and valid reason to draw proper inferences, it can't be done from the gut.

I think that it is quite clear that the distinctions are arbitrary. The sheer fact that none that withstand rational criticism can be forwarded, and it is just taken as a given and attempted to rationalise with those reasons that can't withstand scrutiny attest to this fact.

Now once people realise this they often imagine a slippy slop (which I am happy you didn't attempt to appeal to) where attempting augment as much suffering as possible equals to suffering for others, or the denial to exist for others. This is not the case, just as we can't feed every starving child doesn't imply that we shouldn't try to feed as many as reasonably possible (which I personally think is far more than is currently being fed), the fact that we can't prevent all animal suffering doesn't mean that we should not take part in, or attempt to prevent as much as reasonably possible.

Our very personal survival insures the sufferage of other animals and humans alike, but this isn't reasonably stopable, though many of it is preventable.

That is all I suggest. The specifics need to be weighed, I certaintly don't expect, or suggest anything that isn't reasonable, or would result in an equal or greater amount of suffering.

936. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182196 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 11:12 am

The point in offering it as an explanation is fairly obvious. I was searching for an explanation that did not rely on arbitrary distinctions. I felt it possible that we empathise more with our own species and seek to propagate it. What other reason is there to offer an explanation or than to try and explain?

Such an explanation merely moves the distinction from arbitrary to fallacious. Hardly a point worth making.

I apologize for misunderstanding, but since I was not the only one that did, I hope you will appreciate that it was not very clear what you meant.

937. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182193 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 11:08 am

122. Comment #182190 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

I think that's the first time you have meant that. The first time you've been sincere and not evasive. It's good to see.

Actually that was my second time saying that, though by your saying "first time meaning it" you may have taken the first was as disengenuous.

If you note I haven't actually accused anyone of dogmaticism, or blockedness for not agreeing with me yet. Have you ever considered the possibility that your reasons pathetically fail to convince? Or that...heaven forbid...I'm right?

I do find it distressing that it is constantly asserted how unwilling I am to admit I am wrong with no appreciation for the possibility that I'm right, but instead the seeming certaintly of my falsehood.

I have in no way even hinted at any amount of certainty. In fact I claimed I was a skeptic, and remember by first post criticizing a certain someone for simply asserting that it would be impossible to object to this article, while I allotted a possibility that there was a secular reason to object to stem-cell research in general, I just haven't heard it yet.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but I do think that people should be far more tentative in their assertions.

938. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182191 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 11:01 am

120. Comment #182184 by aleprechaunist

Morality evolves...

I agree, and I think that it is due time for another moral evolution.

939. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182188 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 10:57 am

What was you point in offering it though? Without a point of offering an explanation (as now was asked for or required) how was it not a complete non sequitur, and completely irrevelent to what was being discussed? It isn't my fault I thought you had a point.

I don't remember if I edited that in after, or it was originally there, but since I edit and mess with all of my posts and number of times before I leave them alone, I'll take your word on that. Though I hope you are not claiming that I edited it dishonestly to avoid something, because that isn't true. Though to be correct I didn't call you a social darwinist, I said you had fled there, meaning as cover.

Social Darwinism is a theory that competition among all individuals, groups, nations or ideas drives social evolution in human societies.[verification needed] The term draws upon Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, where competition between individual organisms drives biological evolutionary change (speciation) through the survival of the fittest.

It clearly says that the term is derived from Darwin's theory of competition between individual organisms. Though I was wrong in calling it social darwinism, as they implies behaviour in a society, and other species (beyond perhaps pets) are not considered members of our society. I should have said something like "behavioural darwinism" or just plainly the naturalistic fallacy. Mea culpa.

940. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182178 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 10:39 am

115. Comment #182176 by hungarianelephant

I don't understand what you mean. I understand the reasoning, but I don't see how it applies. Please expaciate.

(*edit*) after reading it again, do you mean all because there is no discernable difference between species A and species B, and species Y and species Z. Doesn't mean that there isn't a discernable difference between species A and species Z?

If so then that is very true, but it holds no bearing on anything that I've said. My cut off points were as decribed in the high animals capable of sufferage and emotional desires. This is where my moral considerations begin, as outlined, and I don't claim that all species possess these, or that many species don't possess the qualities differently, but I am claiming that it isn't justified to extend moral considerations based on such a standard to humans but not non-humans. And that any other standard (because this is the basis for empathy, and emotional concern) is arbitraryily arrived at.

941. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182177 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 10:38 am

113. Comment #182174 by aleprechaunist

Appeal to the people fallacy. So would being a homosexual in the middle east, is it then therefore wrong to be a homosexual?

942. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182175 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 10:35 am

Clydey. I was not the only one that got that from what you say. I fail to see the revelance of even bring it up if not to say that justifies acting morally toward humans but not other animals? What was your point with that then?

I also find it incredably amusing that you said that I didn't to look up what "ad hominem" means. I said exactly what it means in english, and then you quote some definitions that in no way disagree with me, and ignore the fact that you were objecting the the emotive power of the term "social darwinism" and not actually a personal attack at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You can claim that I misunderstood your point about raising Darwinism as an explanation, though I was not the only one that understand you to be saying therefore our behaviour in that regard is justified. Please explain what you meant then?

I cannot be blamed for the misunderstanding. I'm willing to take your word that that wasn't your intent though. If you can explain what your intent actually was, it is your job to clarify your points.

943. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182168 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 10:21 am

Hungarianelephant.

Tell me why I'm wrong.

The line one draws at species is arbitrary, and often animals that are considered seperate species can interbreed. This is true of a great deal of insects. There is also controversy over what makes a species seperate. Some attempt to draw the line as genetic similarities, but this is not pragmatic enough, and is too difficult to determine, so generally biologists draw the distinction that populations that don't interbreed with other populations, not can't.

This explanation is free before I call you on your strawman. I did not suggest that no animal has any differences, I suggested that if you based you moral considerations on sufferage, and appreciation to a beings emotional desires to survive, there is absolutely no reason to draw a cut off line at humans. If you attempt to draw it at intelligence, the intelligences between some humans some animals actually overlap, and there is no static level among humans. Same with thresholds of pain, and cognitive ability.

My point was not that species have no decernable difference. It was there there is no difference that justifies moral considerations for some species on not others, if your moral considerations are based on what I explained mine are based on.

One is perfectly capable of basing their moral considerations on authority, metaphysical ideas, arbitrary opinion, or many other things. I just don't think that those foundations are rationally justifiable, and there are good arguments against them.

I hope I clarified.

944. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182164 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 10:11 am

Firstly, speak for yourself, I clearly do not think that it is acceptable to experiment on non-human animals. Have you not noticed that has been my objection? Also, as I clearly outlined, our survive instinct places other humans as far greater rivals to our genetic perpetuation than other species. This results in justifying immoral behaviour toward members of our our species equally, if not more so than other species. Only close relatives that share our genes are valued, not the entire species, as evolution does not favor species, but individuals.

Actually an ad hominem is litterally "to the person" and an ad hominem attack would be "a personal attack" though you now claim my faux pas was using emotive language.

What you described was social Darwinism, suggesting that we should behave based on Darwinian principles is social Darwinism. You clearly need to read what social Darwinism is. Because that is what you described. It is also an appeal to the naturalistic fallacy. All because something is natural, does not make it good. The best you can do is use Darwinism to describe why we irrationally favor humans over other animals, it in no way justifies continuing to do so. Just as you can appeal to nature as to why people are violent, or why there are rapist, that doesn't mean people shouldn't try to be non-violent, and not rape.

945. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182155 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 9:39 am

Also Darwinism surely doesn't insure survival of a species, it's actually quite bad at that. 99.8% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct, there is absolutely no reason to assume that following our instincts is a good way to survive, opposed to our intellect.

I'll take the intellect thanks.

Also I offered no ad hominem attacts. What as an ad hominem exactly (well towards you anyway, I did call TOCT an idiot)? Inaccurate in what way? What did I say about Darwinism that was inaccurate?

I do get that you extent your moral considerations to other humans but not other species. If you haven't noticed (which amazes me) I've been arguing how that isn't rationally justifiable the entire time.

946. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182150 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 9:25 am

You've fled into social Darwinism...which I find sad. I expected moral relativism...but wow. Also Darwinism favors individuals, not species. So the survival of the fittest ideal that you translate to other species is equally justified to translate to other human beings.

As survival mechines other species are not as harmful to the survival of our specific genes than members of our own species are. It would also be quite Darwinian to become a serial rapist, and attempt to impregnate as many women as possible.

There is an obvious reason why Dawkins and others argue fervantly against getting ones morals from Darwinism.

947. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182145 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 9:20 am

My claim was that there is no distinction that would justify a cut off point between humans and other higher animals capable of suffering and the desire to survive. I have reiterated this numerous times.

So clearly your reductio, although absurd, was in no way based on my reasoning.

You also of course in no way addressed my reductio. Your reasoning was that unless it can "feel exploited" it is ok to exploit it. I reduced this reasoning to the absurd. Either you think date rape is fine, and the exploitation of young children, or clearly you do not agree that it is morally okay to exploit those that are unaware that they are being exploited.

It is obviously, and clearly implicate that you believe that human being possess some metaphysical difference to every other animal that justifies rights and freedoms for them and no other animal. Please cut the crap, and demonstrate this implicate assumption.

948. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182140 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 9:12 am

Now you know why I've ignored you TOCT, you're an idiot. That isn't a reductio ad absurdum...learn what terms mean. A reductio ad absurdum takes the same line of reasoning and reduces it to the absurd. You have not taking my line of reason, you have merely created an absurd example, which is not the samething.

My reasoning involves my moral considerations which I have outlined, you are ignored my reasoning.

You also completely ignored my questions, and answer to your question to merely ask an irrelevent and idiotic question.

949. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182137 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 9:09 am

Humans are more complex than other animals in the area of abstract thought, and plastisity of the brain alone. Not in ability to suffer, or desire to survive. Mainy of our emotions in this area are lower brain functions, and developed in our ancestors hundreds of millions of years ago. There are none that I am aware of that are the result of complex abstract thought. This also continues to ignore that not all humans are equal in this regard, yet we allot equal rights and freedoms, so this clearly cannot be the standard by which we do that.

I am going to completely ignore you now, as you have every point I've made.

950. Brown says embryo research is key to life

Comment #182134 by Mitchell Gilks on May 19, 2008 at 9:05 am

TOCT, I told you not to expect responses for points I've already addressed, or that I didn't feel worthy of response. So you should have expected this.

Since this point seems to mean so much to you I will ignore that I have addressed it (by asking you if you would be willing to harvest eggs against the will of human females, which of course went unanswered) to address it regardless. Now you seem to have switched it to whether they can "feel exploited" or not. A unconscious person cann't feel exploited. So is date rape perfectly fine? A child before a certain age cannot feel exploited, so would it be okay to exploit them as well?

I don't care whether someone can feel explioted, and unless you agree with my reductio ad absurdum (which I sincerely hope you don't) than neither do you. The fact that they can be exploited is the issue.