Comments by kkelly

101. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238760 by kkelly on August 28, 2008 at 2:40 pm

I consider stupid humans to be inanimate objects so this isn't surprising.

102. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #238741 by kkelly on August 28, 2008 at 2:25 pm

17, Nobody wanted to.

103. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #238730 by kkelly on August 28, 2008 at 2:09 pm

7, In California, opinion is split at 47/47%, but a majority oppose a ballot initiative to ban it.
http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080828/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_poll

104. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #238227 by kkelly on August 27, 2008 at 7:08 pm

173, Flagged as offensive. Shame, look into it.

105. B.C. health official says mumps outbreak began with unimmunized religious group

Comment #238138 by kkelly on August 27, 2008 at 3:59 pm

20, post polio syndrome?

106. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238123 by kkelly on August 27, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Oh no. I just poisoned all your food and now the whole court is dead. There, now shut up.

107. B.C. health official says mumps outbreak began with unimmunized religious group

Comment #237906 by kkelly on August 27, 2008 at 11:48 am

5, hankies and tissues are not sanitary. You're still getting germs on your hands by handling them. Sneezing into your arm is the best.

108. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237657 by kkelly on August 26, 2008 at 10:30 pm

132, Just email me a pic of your cock stabbing the fluff out of any Disney character plush and you're golden.

109. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237655 by kkelly on August 26, 2008 at 10:24 pm

129, I host an online furry chat on thursdays. Do you want in?

110. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237654 by kkelly on August 26, 2008 at 10:20 pm

127, I have heard of mutual jack-offs among straight guys in junior high and high school, but I have no reason to believe they're not rare. And mutual jack-offs (Y Tu Mama Tambien comes to mind) don't involve any physical interaction.

111. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237652 by kkelly on August 26, 2008 at 10:18 pm

126, it's true that moods can suppress libido, but that doesn't mean they can direct libido towards whatever object you choose. This is an aside, anyway, and says nothing about whether orientation is inborn or environmentally caused.

112. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237648 by kkelly on August 26, 2008 at 10:07 pm

124, Okay, you don't choose to get an erection when an attractive man or woman comes up to you at the bar, sits close to you, and leans in for a kiss. Why are you arguing against the obvious?

edit: And I don't think simple mechanical stimulation is enough to cause an erection. I could rub myself all day long staring at a brick wall and nothing will happen. So I doubt that a straight man will get hard if a guy strokes him.

113. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237646 by kkelly on August 26, 2008 at 9:59 pm

122, And in those bisexuals, they don't choose to have their penis get hard when they look at a man or woman.

Those people you describe last are what we call INSANE.

114. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237644 by kkelly on August 26, 2008 at 9:48 pm

120, how would we settle it?

115. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237642 by kkelly on August 26, 2008 at 9:45 pm

118, how is that scientifically unsound? You don't choose what gives you an erection.

116. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237632 by kkelly on August 26, 2008 at 9:05 pm

111, Are you saying that in NZ there are tons of masculine, handsome men that have sex with other men, as opposed to all the effeminate twinks that make up the majority of my options here in the states, owing to our oppressive culture that makes those who can easily hide their orientation wish to do so?

117. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237625 by kkelly on August 26, 2008 at 8:49 pm

105, It does not indicate that all homosexuality is caused by neurological traits that are set early in life. I can't give you a percentage, you should look at the data. My understanding is that the correlation is very strong.

118. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237619 by kkelly on August 26, 2008 at 8:34 pm

99, We know, because the brain traits are of the type that are set VERY early in life...fetalhood. We also know that some of those traits have no relationship to sexuality, but are correlated with biological gender (the inner ear of lesbians is more similar to men), so is it at all logical to assume that lifestyle choice of sexual partners would alter a trait that has NOTHING to do with sexuality? No. We also know that homosexuality can be induced in other mammals by altering gestational hormone levels.

Draw your own inferences, christalmighty.

119. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237604 by kkelly on August 26, 2008 at 8:00 pm

90, Bonzai, then for self-identified gay men, would you accept there's a biological origin, as the studies show?

120. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237586 by kkelly on August 26, 2008 at 7:27 pm

83, thanks for that, I'm going to try to memorize some of it for future conversations.

121. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237581 by kkelly on August 26, 2008 at 7:16 pm

Sexuality may be a complex phenomenon, but sexual orientation, in males, is straightforward.

By the way, it isn't just the religious right that doesn't want to accept a biological origin, it's gay men as well. To some, the idea that parts of their brains' connectivity and organization have remained feminized, is an insult. Well get over it.

122. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #237470 by kkelly on August 26, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Fanusi,

What we can get are the ones who really mean it, who stand up and say they want to replace the constitution with the Shariah - Abu Haza & so forth. We can get them, deport them, bar them from ever returning, seize their mosques and holdings and tear them down.

But imams are an extreme minority of muslims who advocate sharia, and one who most people would want to see in jail or deported if they incite hatred. But how do you determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether a non-preaching muslim actually supports sharia, if they'd likely say they were exaggerating, or renounce it entirely, when cross-examined by authorities?

123. Monkeys Enjoy Giving To Others, Study Finds

Comment #237426 by kkelly on August 26, 2008 at 1:07 pm

18, Madagascar?

124. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #237409 by kkelly on August 26, 2008 at 12:39 pm

513, Why do you always talk like a 19th century chimney sweep?

125. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #237376 by kkelly on August 26, 2008 at 12:03 pm

For instance a black child raised by a white family in a white neighborhood would certainly reflect "whiteness" in IQ tests and the like.

Not according to the Minnesota Adoption Study. And I didn't know people on this site use "whiteness" as a euphemism for superior test taking abilities.

126. Imagine No Religion' signs to go up around town

Comment #237075 by kkelly on August 25, 2008 at 9:38 pm

126, Is that some volatile sulfur compound that smells like pig shit or something? If so it makes sense.

127. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #237066 by kkelly on August 25, 2008 at 9:21 pm

96, I was just explaining where he was coming from because you both were arguing at cross purposes and it was annoying me.

I, personally, do not agree with him on that. I think human beings, by virtue of their self awareness and greater ability to value their lives, ARE more deserving of life, liberty, and happiness than say, a fucking fungal spore.

The thing is, the difference in our mental qualities and chimps' is more a matter of degree than absoluteness, so I think that their lives and emotional states should be protected legally, when practical. In the developed world, it is practical. Whether or not we consider them human, or subhuman, is beside the point. That they have human-like cognition and awareness is what matters.

Now, if I had to choose between treating them with kid gloves or testing HIV cures/vaccines on them as they suffer in miserable claustrophobic environments (assuming that's the most efficacious way), of COURSE I'd choose the latter, but I'd feel bad about it.

128. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #237045 by kkelly on August 25, 2008 at 7:12 pm

Panurge, you should know that J Mac thinks human consciousness is, or might be, just another form of biological awareness that is no better or worse than a cell's awareness of its environment via receptors/second messenger systems/gene expression.

129. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236981 by kkelly on August 25, 2008 at 3:47 pm

I commend you, twp.

Jesus Christ, it's the blind leading the blind.

130. Imagine No Religion' signs to go up around town

Comment #236972 by kkelly on August 25, 2008 at 3:26 pm

91, Hmm, this is a stumper alright. Let me think about if and I'll get back to you.

131. Imagine No Religion' signs to go up around town

Comment #236960 by kkelly on August 25, 2008 at 3:18 pm

89, I can't tell, what was the punctuation?

132. Imagine No Religion' signs to go up around town

Comment #236953 by kkelly on August 25, 2008 at 3:08 pm

86, seriously? excersicing?

133. Imagine No Religion' signs to go up around town

Comment #236915 by kkelly on August 25, 2008 at 2:19 pm

69, minora o majora?

134. Imagine No Religion' signs to go up around town

Comment #236910 by kkelly on August 25, 2008 at 2:17 pm

66, ew, you two were fucking? I don't know which one I should feel sorry for.

135. Imagine No Religion' signs to go up around town

Comment #236905 by kkelly on August 25, 2008 at 2:11 pm

62, lollercoaster!!!

136. Imagine No Religion' signs to go up around town

Comment #236898 by kkelly on August 25, 2008 at 2:05 pm

54, cool. I have it on my iPod and like to run through woods listening to it, pretending I'm running away from a rapist.

137. Imagine No Religion' signs to go up around town

Comment #236881 by kkelly on August 25, 2008 at 1:51 pm

I always wanted to be a teenager in the 80s so that I could go to the mall and see Tiffany.

138. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236585 by kkelly on August 24, 2008 at 8:40 pm

401, um, that WASN'T sarcasm. If I wasn't constrained by such strict forum standards I'd call her much worse.

Not that don't like you, TWP. I mean I don't. But I LIKE that I don't. Make sense?

139. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236577 by kkelly on August 24, 2008 at 8:24 pm

yay, diacanu's back. call her stupid in a sexist way again.

140. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236531 by kkelly on August 24, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Don't you people get tired of typing "< blockquote>" so much? Why not make it < bq>?

141. Priest Antonio Rungi wants beauty contest - for nuns

Comment #236510 by kkelly on August 24, 2008 at 6:07 pm

7, If I learned anything from Sister Mary Clarence, it's that pride is a wonderful thing.

142. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235900 by kkelly on August 23, 2008 at 10:14 pm

414, I know, right? Who knew you were THAT annoying.

143. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #235897 by kkelly on August 23, 2008 at 10:10 pm

I have absolutely no problems with creating laws and a mechnism to enforce them to protect primates

Great, now we just have to make sure the word "human" never appears in the wording of the law and we'll both be on our happy little way.

144. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235888 by kkelly on August 23, 2008 at 9:54 pm

Of course I was shit stirring, it's what I do, well in the literal sense usually.

Anyway, some were complaining about the cliquey socializing (I don't mind it), while others were only complaining about the cricket bat joke.

145. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #235882 by kkelly on August 23, 2008 at 9:43 pm

38, You must be trying really hard to not understand. Forget about the word "human". This is about protecting animals whose intellectual capacities rival human toddlers from torture, miserable confinement, and arbitrary death in countries that would adopt this measure. Nothing else.

146. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235867 by kkelly on August 23, 2008 at 9:19 pm

387, one of the more unconventional posters posted a link to pictures of your head photoshopped on various bodies of women unfortunate enough to have turned to zoophilia pornography to pay the rent.

147. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #235859 by kkelly on August 23, 2008 at 9:10 pm

35, Extending certain human rights (rather I should say, rights traditionally granted to humans) is not the same as equating them with humans. You're clearly insane.

148. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235857 by kkelly on August 23, 2008 at 9:07 pm

379, you might want to check out the "a flea we missed?" thread. Then again you might not...

149. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #235848 by kkelly on August 23, 2008 at 8:02 pm

32, Are you THAT hung up on semantics? Post 19 clarified which human rights were under consideration. Children are human but you full well understand that they don't have all the rights adults do, yet you think in this case "human" automatically means adult human of normal intelligence?

150. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235722 by kkelly on August 23, 2008 at 12:39 pm

13, Because everybody is NOT well aware, and those who are aware yet deny it for political reasons can get away with their distortions until everybody is.