101. 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.

102. 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.

103. 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.

104. 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.

105. 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.

106. 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.

107. 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?"

108. 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.

109. Lizards make adaptive change

Comment #187289 by Mitchell Gilks on June 1, 2008 at 7:41 pm

They had this up already on here didn't they? If not this adds no new information. Didn't the last article have pictures?

110. Random Acts of Evolution

Comment #187287 by Mitchell Gilks on June 1, 2008 at 7:28 pm

10. Comment #187214 by esuther

As I understand it homo sapiens have a relatively small genome compared to many other animals. Also, if I'm not mistaken I believe that I read somewhere that an Ameba has the largest genome of all.

I believe (though again, I'm not sure, and I've read very little about it) this is because a lot of mutations actually delete genes from the genome. Then I believe I remember someone (maybe Dawkins in "The Ancestor's Tale"?) using a hard drive as an analogy for a genome, and saying how different animals actually have different size "hard drives" as it were. So not only difference in amount of genes, but in capacity of the genome.

111. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187218 by Mitchell Gilks on June 1, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Almost forgot, this is a rather old one, so you all might have seen it already.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGTHoMUU8BY

112. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187217 by Mitchell Gilks on June 1, 2008 at 1:56 pm

288. Comment #187215 by noodly_noodleson

Odd, yet strangely appealing. It's a slippery slope from mustard it would seem. Soon I'll be using hair gel and wearing colourful and flamboyant clothing. Mustard colour of course.

113. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187202 by Mitchell Gilks on June 1, 2008 at 1:27 pm

282. Comment #187199 by Quetzalcoatl

Clearly it's a choice. A purposeful, and evil affront to the righteous and pure condiments.

114. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187198 by Mitchell Gilks on June 1, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Perhaps they can set up hustles and find a cure for our perverted mustard cravings?

Impure...impure...

115. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187186 by Mitchell Gilks on June 1, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Well I didn't learn about evolution in school. At least very little about it, and my teacher (although delightfully facetious) was definitely uncomfortable teaching it with all the stupid kids raising religious points the whole time. Although I was pretty well completely ignorant of it at the time, I still was the one arguing with them. At the time I accepted for the reason that it was the prevailing view of science.

I am largely autodidactic. I just read a lot. I still only have a superficial understanding of science and evolution. Though I think I grasp how science works, and a lot of the evidence for it.

Though being a life long atheist I've never had any presuppositions about it's inherent impossibility holding my willingness to learn about it back.

116. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187184 by Mitchell Gilks on June 1, 2008 at 12:32 pm

267. Comment #187178 by MaxD

I also like mustard. I eat it almost every day on my psuedo-cheese sandwiches.

117. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187175 by Mitchell Gilks on June 1, 2008 at 12:04 pm

263. Comment #187171 by Appleby

I don't see how your personal disgust is at all relevent? Unless your a fascist and want to force everyone to conform to your personal preferences then what is the relevence of even mentioning that you personally don't find it appealing?

I find willful ignorance, stupidity, and prejudice to be of utmost disgust. They turn my stomach. I don't then suggest that such people should have fewer rights and privilages than I, or should be segregated to "communities" away from me.

No forms of prohibitionary actions, or behavioural prescriptive suggestions follows from "I personally don't like X". It is a red harring, and irrelevent.

118. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187162 by Mitchell Gilks on June 1, 2008 at 11:49 am

249. Comment #187148 by noodly_noodleson

That is completely correct. In fact love between two men was considered the purest form of love. Also, it is still considered normal for girls to develope crushes on other girls while in school. Though this isn't really considered homosexual, as they are still assumed to marry and have children and such eventually. It's considered "psuedo-romance".

Homosexuality was pretty well ubiquitously accepted around the world until the rise of the Abrahmaic religions.

I'm unaware of a single rational secular objection to it.

119. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187120 by Mitchell Gilks on June 1, 2008 at 10:11 am

I wouldn't bother answering ad hoc hypotheticals. They are not a valid form of argument. They are unrealistic, and everyone is the god of their own hypothetical universe. I could concoct a sufficiently ad hoc'd hypothetical in which you would agree to rape a child. It in no way proves, or demonstrates anything other than the powers of my imagination, and my ability to sufficiently warp reality to achieve the ends I desire.

120. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187115 by Mitchell Gilks on June 1, 2008 at 9:57 am

212. Comment #187108 by Appleby

I think you are assuming that some value calculus is done so that human beings are proven of greater value and over all superiority to any other animals. You will find that this is also not true. It suffers from the same problems. Any amount of determining over all betterment for our species is equally arbitrarily determined, and not supported by reason or evidence.

I for one am a vegan by the way.

121. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187112 by Mitchell Gilks on June 1, 2008 at 9:52 am

210. Comment #187106 by Colwyn Abernathy

I found it funny, and I felt the same way.

122. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187107 by Mitchell Gilks on June 1, 2008 at 9:50 am

203. Comment #187099 by Appleby

I'd say genetics and comparative anatomy.

123. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187104 by Mitchell Gilks on June 1, 2008 at 9:47 am

200. Comment #187095 by Colwyn Abernathy

(*cough*) (*cough*) one of the first points I made (*cough*) (*cough*)

124. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187074 by Mitchell Gilks on June 1, 2008 at 9:08 am

181. Comment #187071 by Appleby

No, he was telling you that the scientific method assumes the negative. It assumes the hypothesis is false and then attempts to disprove it.

Accepting a hypothesis as true and attempting to accumulate evidence in it's favor is the opposite of what science does. That is what religion does. They assume the truth of their assumptions, and attempts to aquire evidence in their support. This is known as begging the question, or I've also heard it refered to as "uncritical rationalism".

125. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187070 by Mitchell Gilks on June 1, 2008 at 9:01 am

177. Comment #187066 by Appleby

Go back and read my posts you fool. I have repeatedly said that such a calculus cannot be done. It is an absurd idea. I have also repeatedly said that I never once said that "everyone is equal in skill and ability" that is absrud. Are you honestly too stupid to understand what I've been saying?

Did anyone else find what I had previously said hard to grasp?

126. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187068 by Mitchell Gilks on June 1, 2008 at 8:58 am

175. Comment #187063 by Appleby

(*rollseyes*) Herhaps you should read it first. In the section labled "Evaluating hypotheses" you will find Epeeist's point made, and that you are wrong.

127. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187062 by Mitchell Gilks on June 1, 2008 at 8:51 am

168. Comment #187053 by noodly_noodleson

Although I never threaten people, I have an interest in Japan. Though I'm awesome for other reasons.

Perhaps if the evidence warrants it, you might even accept that white people are more intelligent than blacks; and that perhaps women should be subservient to men...

128. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #186945 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 11:16 pm

We need to open a can on their asses. This has gone on far enough.

"KA-ME-HA-ME-HA!"

"Final Flash!"

"Bankai! Getsuga Tenshou!"

"Nanomachine, Crusnik 0.2, initiating operation at 80%...acknowledged."

"Releasing Control Art Restriction Systems three...two...one, approval of Situation A recognized. Commencing the Cromwell invocation. Ability restrictions lifted for limited use until the enemy has been rendered silent."

"Grant me the power to bring the world revolution!"

"Initiating Hilbert Effect, stand by."

"Rasenshuriken!"

"SPARKLING SOLAR WAVE OF ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION!"

"Bakuryouha!"

"Renzokuken! Lionheart!"

"Starlight breaker!"

"Kagutsuchi!"

"Emerald Ri Majon."

Yeah...take some of that you creationists! What's your god's special ability? The ultimate champion of hide-and-seek?

(Feel free to add, I don't actually watch a lot of action anime. Plus it's late, and there are likely a lot more I can't think of right now.)

129. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186939 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 10:03 pm

143. Comment #186929 by noodly_noodleson

Hey, who needs pesky facts and studies when you have yourself as the standard by which all else is judged?

Coincidentally everything that I identify as is "over-all superior" than every other preceived group. Damn I'm lucky eh? To be born into the all around best group in existence! What are the odds?

You know what they say? The one thing that could possibly make team A better than team B is if I were moved from team B to team A.

130. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186937 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 9:35 pm

140. Comment #186917 by Appleby

That is the third time you have ignored every single thing I said to merely reassert your unsupported and rediculous assertions.

I already answered your retarded question numerous times. There is no such thing as over all superiority. That doesn't make any sense.

I would not accept that anything was "over all superior" than anything else. Outside of a context the statement has no meaning. All I see is you telling me that apples are "over all superior" to oranges. Without explaining in what way, or how so, the statement is vacuous.

You just keep ignoring everything I have to say, and asserting things that easily demonstrated as absurd and wrong, then saying I'm just disagreeing with you for the pure and simple fact that I don't like what you have to say despite the fact that I have actively shown what you have had to say to be idiotic and wrong.

I don't like what you have to say because it's wrong. I don't like unreason, and fallacious assertions. They annoy me. My personal preferences and likes and dislikes have zero sway over reality. It would be fallacious and irrational for me to bring them into my thought processing in matters of fact. So I do not.

I'm disagreeing with you because I'm quite confident that you're wrong.

I think that it is also, again, quite idiotic to say that I would be happier if women were "over all superior" to men. I am a man. That would be self deprecating. Yeah, I'd much rather believe that I was inferior than superior...yeah... This is something I hear from theists all the time too. I'm just an atheist because I don't like the idea of eternal bliss and magic powers if I play my cards right. I'd much prefer a short under 100 years (at best) existence and then oblivion. Are they insane? Of course I'd rather eternal life and magic powers, who in their right mind wouldn't? What I'd rather be true however is of zero interest to what is in fact true.

131. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186913 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 6:47 pm

133. Comment #186895 by Appleby

Are you too stupid to understand what I said? Superiority is a value judgement, not something that can be demonstrated outside of a context, or that can be shown as an over all state of being. And surely you don't think that every single male is more intelligent than every single female?

You clearly aren't very intelligent, so say that the most intelligent people were men (though the highest IQ ever recorded was Marilyn vos Savant at 230, a woman) how would that make you superior to women in that regard? Care to explain that logic? More intelligent women would still be superior to you in that regard. This is of course bullshit in any case, men tend to do better on average in spatial and mathematics tests, while women do better on language and memory tests. Over all though, the IQ average of men and women are roughly the same.

No where did I suggest that men and women are completely equal at everything. That is a retarded sentiment. There is not a single thing that all men are better than all women at, and visa versa. So clearly the only consistent measurement would be by each individual, and I seriously hope that you don't think that there is nothing that any woman can do better than you. Or is more skills at than you. If you do think that then I think you are quite insane.

Even if it were true that the top people in everything were male (though I don't think for a second that is the case), this doesn't equal you then being superior to women in those regards as well. How does that even begin to make sense?

Unless you are planing to develope some system to allot rights based on ability in certain fields or something then what is the point of this? Advocating equal rights and freedoms in no way suggests that one believes all people to be equal in skill and ability in all regards. That is absurd. It is a red harring, and a non sequitur. It doesn't matter, and it in no way is a factor. There are no skills or abilities that are inherent in some groups and not in others, it is individualistic. You are irrationally infering links between things that simply do not exist.

I consistently fail to see any point whatsoever in anything that you have put forward. I also fail to see any amount of sense or logic tying it together.

Lastly, you ignored my criticism of your assertion that people on here are deciding what's true based on personal preference, and a demand for a demonstration of your assertion, and instead just opted to reassert it.

It would appear to me that you are the one that would like your sexist, homophobic, and bigotted sentiments to be true, and don't care what the facts of the matter are. If you did, you would actually look into such things before asserting them.

132. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186848 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 12:26 pm

119. Comment #186847 by Appleby

This is absolutely and completely absurd. It is the complete opposite that is true. It has been historically (and still is in many places) the case that women were considered inferior, and subserviant to men. It has always been the rational, and the intelligent that has demonstrated the complete lack of backing for this position.

Most notably because what is "better" is a value judgement, not a statement of fact. It is absurd to suggest that one can demonstrate an "objective value". Nothing is better than anything else objectively. That is completely a matter of opinion, and arbitrarily determined, not rationally or evidentiarily determined. Or it is contingent on context. Better at something. In which case there is nothing that all men are better than all women at, and visa versa.

You have it completely backward. It has historically been the uneducated irrational masses that believe men to be superior, and the rational and sophisticated intelligencia to show the absurdity of such a position.

I'm done bothering with your idiocy.

133. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186845 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 12:09 pm

116. Comment #186831 by Appleby

You're an idiot. Plan and simple. You keep attacking straw-men, and points no one has made. Or argued for.

Our preferences, likes and dislikes do not dictate reality. Your point is fallacious and fatuous.

If a sexual preference, or fetish were decided harmful, or detrimental to society then I highly doubt you would find anyone disagreeing that it is wrong (except of course those that want to partake in it).

Look at the evidence, and the track record? Who is defending pedophiles for instance (I am in no way comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, I am merely breing up illegal sexual preferences to demonstrate the idiocy of the point. If anything, I'm showing how unrelated they are. It is also relevent to note that only 10% of pedophiles are actually homosexuals. Just as in the general population 90% of pedophiles are heterosexual)? Sexual preferences or desires that are detrimental to society are not defended. They are illegal because there is secular cause, and evidence that demonstrates them harmful. This is not true of homosexuality. It is no more true for heterosexuality, and raping women. Raping women is harmful, so it is illegal. When actions cause harm and suffering is when they become a moral issue, not before.

The facts seem to indicate the complete opposite of what you state. On what grounds do you make your assertions? Give a single actual demonstration where this is done? Who has advocated determining what is true based on what they would like to be true? And haven't you heard this criticism thrown toward theists thousands of times?

134. Teacher tortures, kills boy

Comment #186842 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 11:55 am

Maybe I could get one of those teachers to help me memorize the Kanji. It's slow going.

As long as they promise not to kill me of course.

135. Teacher tortures, kills boy

Comment #186839 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 11:46 am

Wow, what a sick fuck. My concern would be how long this teacher has "taught", and how many children didn't die as a result of their torture. I find it hard to believe that the teacher just snapped one day, and had never administered such punishment in the past.

I think this needs to be thoroughly investigated, and discovered how prevailant such capitol punishment is in these "schools".

136. Karma comedians

Comment #186834 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 11:35 am

Who gives a shit what some celebrity has to say about world affairs? That I've never understood.

137. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186826 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 11:02 am

110. Comment #186821 by Appleby

What blatant absurdity. Objective morality? I'm not sure that such a thing is logically possible. Demonstrate morality removed from subjectives. As I understand morality, it is a system for determining behaviour between agents, and is reliant on, and the product of agents. So I'm not sure that what you suggest is possible. Perhaps you think of morality differently. In which case you should define your terms.

Also even if it were, acknowledging something's possiblity is light-years away from taking it seriously as fact. I acknowledge the possibility of invisible fairies. I am however quite aways away from accepting the fact of their existence.

Again, I fail to see a point in this as well. You are again boxing shadows. I don't think you will find many people that deny the "possibilty" of many things they think are completely absurd. Now it's on your shoulders to give people a reason to believe that it is, of a matter of fact, the truth of the matter.

138. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186824 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 10:55 am

107. Comment #186816 by Appleby

Jeez...who is telling you that you are not free to think what you want to? Where is the thought policing totalitarians in the thread?

You act as if dissent or dislike of your opinions and views is somehow attempting to force you not to have them through means other than rational discourse.

You appear to be fighting shadows. I've seen no one advocate what you keep implying is being advocated against you.

139. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186814 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 10:46 am

104. Comment #186811 by Appleby

I fail to see what your point in all of this is? What is it exactly?

140. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186807 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 10:34 am

100. Comment #186805 by Appleby

It is a statement of fact not of opinion. As I stated, if you state "unconventional" statements of fact, then expect to get funny looks. Also, anecdotes are hardly "facts". Not to mention, based on your experience? So you consider yourself the judge of intelligence do you? Puh-leeze.

141. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186802 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 10:28 am

96. Comment #186801 by Appleby

You stated that you are free to have the "opinion" that white people are generally more intelligent than black people. That is a statement of fact, not of opinion. You are of course free to have an opinion, but don't expect to be taken seriously about it.

142. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186797 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 10:22 am

91. Comment #186793 by Appleby

Well then that's all irrelevent? I am unaware of anyone that suggested that you must share their preferences. What is your point? What is the relevence of your comments? Who is saying that you must find ugly women and members of the same sex attractive or you're a bad person exactly?

143. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186794 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 10:19 am

89. Comment #186789 by Appleby

Opinions are of little interest over matters of fact. You are of course free to have "unconventional opinions" like that 2 plus 2 actually equals 3. You would however rightly get some funny looks if you are unwilling to support your "opinions" with anything.

144. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186786 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 10:07 am

84. Comment #186774 by keith

Although, I can see how you misunderstood, I understood him to be saying what he explained as well, Keith.

And Appleby is a perfect example of this.

I tried to understand his analogy of ugly women and homosexuals...but I just can't... does he think that ugly women deserve less rights and freedoms than attractive women? Or that being in support of equity for homosexuals entails being sexually attracted to members of the same sex? Unless he is implying one of these options...then I don't understand what his analogy is suppose to mean.

He also does understand that it is perfectly ok to be personally disgusted by gay sex and still be fully in support of equity for homosexuals right?

For the record I also find male gay sex to be no more appealing than extremely unattractive women. This however has absolutely nothing to do with my moral outlook. Or else I would consider it immoral to eat onions. What an absurd world it would be if people's personal preferences held sway over their moral outlooks.

I also don't find it hard to imagine that homosexuals, or even other heterosexuals may be disgusted by what I find sexually appealing. Well, they can get stuffed. I would just assume that they also realise that it would be absurd to think that this is cause to think my preferences are "wrong". Now that is an appeal to objective morality.

145. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186760 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 9:15 am

48. Comment #186572 by Cartomancer

I wasn't even aware that the archaic legal requirement for sexual consummation of a marriage was still on the books. If it is then it's probably in breach of many, many human rights and anti-discrimination laws, or at least it damn well should be. I think that any test case brought on such grounds would blow that one out of the water, so even if the law hasn't been scrapped already it's effectively just as inoperative as the laws which require me to train in archery every Sunday, and allow me to fire my crossbow at marauding Welshmen in Coventry after midnight.

But yes, female intercourse puzzles me too. Even after I had my friends draw me a set of anatomical diagrams...

146. 'Uncontacted tribe' sighted in Amazon

Comment #186705 by Mitchell Gilks on May 31, 2008 at 6:44 am

I don't know why we wouldn't want to contact them? With the correct procautions, and vaccinations in hand, it would be a learning experience for us all.

Their heads are not going to explode because they can't figure out how a cell phone works. I don't know how most of the shit I see and use actually works. Nor do most people, none of our heads explode.

Contact clearly is inevitable, so I think we should plan it, instead of letting it happen under perhaps far more traumatic terms.

Also, Star Trek? Puh-leeze. What an evil horrible idea of a utopian future that is. Utopias always have the same fatal flaw, an unrealistic and nightmarish uniformity of thought, ideas, philosophies, and outlooks.

The only diffence between Star Trek and 1984 is 400 years and everyone is apparently happy in Star Trek. They both completely lack any form of sexual, philosophical, economic, political, or social dissent.

I can't even think of star trek without getting the chills. In order to achieve such uniformity, all forms of dissent need to be stifled out. If you read the history of utopian thought, you will find that this is advocated with a complete lack of impunity.

Thomas More coined the word "utopia" and in his dreamed perfect society atheists were killed, because one is incapable of moral behaviour without a fear of god.

Star Trek is a utopia through the eyes of the oppressor, not the oppressed.

147. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186487 by Mitchell Gilks on May 30, 2008 at 10:57 am

29. Comment #186473 by rustylix

Yes, there is something quite obvious you are overlooking. Unless you then had sex with the transexual, then the marriage would not have been consumated, and you could get it annulled.

Which reminds me. After discussing gay marriage with someone, I got to wondering what exactly counts as consummation for lesbians? I'm pretty sure that oral sex doesn't count for heterosexuals...am I wrong about that? Or is an exception made? Hmm... maybe I'm just being dense, but there isn't anything they can really do that I think would count as consumation for a heterosexual marriage.

I'm betting the legal writing on the subject would be rather entertaining.

148. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186484 by Mitchell Gilks on May 30, 2008 at 10:50 am

Isn't this merely grounds for divorce? Not annulment?

Wouldn't "virginity" need to be directly outlined in the marriage agreement? How is this more grounds for annulment than any other lie or deception your spouse may have fooled you with? "What you can't benchpress 200 lbs? Only 175? Well I consider it an important quality that a man can benchpress 200 lbs. You lied to me! Annulment please!"

Clearly, by the wording on the article (though there is very little information to go on, completely lacking the wife's side of the story) presumably it was not, and presumably the marriage was consumated. So, I'm with Cartomancer, unless they can seriously demonstrate that virginity is a "quality" (which I also agree is a rather odd thing to begin with) then I don't see any real grounds for annulment. Divorce, yes, annulment, no.

149. Altruism in social insects is a family affair

Comment #186111 by Mitchell Gilks on May 29, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Looks like RD was right. When reading and watching things about evolution, I find that everything that is going on makes perfect sense in light of a gene-central view of it.

150. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186109 by Mitchell Gilks on May 29, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Seems like bullshit to me. I would want to see a large amount of scientific evidence to back up their claims before I would take them seriously. Clock radios give off electric fields. Power lines give off much larger eletric fields than a cell phone or Wi-Fi. This seems entirely made up by morons to me.