151. 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".

152. 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.

153. 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.

154. 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.

155. 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?

156. 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.

157. 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.

158. 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?

159. 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.

160. 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.

161. 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...

Oh, I didn't know that it was considered archiac. I thought that it was still legally valid, but I'm not very knowledgable about legal issues.

Lesbian sex in no way confuses me, I was just wondering if consummation was outlined in detail, and specified for every type of relationship, and what exactly counts. If it is still active, then I would think that it would need to be.

162. '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.

163. 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.

164. 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.

165. 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.

166. 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.

167. Fossil reveals oldest live birth

Comment #186106 by Mitchell Gilks on May 29, 2008 at 3:27 pm

2. Comment #186102 by Quine

Yes, but what you are not realising is that it isn't giving birth to a squirrel now is it? So evolution must therefore be wrong. Q.E.D.

168. Jamy Ian Swiss - Skepticism and the Art and Philosophy of Magic

Comment #185675 by Mitchell Gilks on May 28, 2008 at 9:42 am

5. Comment #185637 by kraut

considering there is nothing "supernatural" out there, not a hard line to draw.Everything is explainable rationally, but for some (quite a few) phenomena we just haven't found the correct explanation yet.

That is a faith based assertion, that can't even begin to be justified. Without omniscience one cannot possible justify it. It is however a cute sentiment.

Skepticism, in a philosophical sense is universal doubt of unjustified and unsupported assertions. Not just supernatural ones.

Supernatural claims are fundamentally useless, and unfalsifiable/unvarifiable in principle. Because it would require that you have a complete and absolute understanding of nature before you could justifiably say that something was a violation or interuption in natural laws. That is the rational reason for rejecting supernatural explanations. Not because they are impossible, which equally pretends to a complete knowledge and understanding of natural law and the universe.

169. Top 6 Incestuous Relationships In The Bible

Comment #185600 by Mitchell Gilks on May 28, 2008 at 7:00 am

47. Comment #185578 by the great teapot

I think there is a clear evolutionary advantage to thinking that way. The more diverse the genes, the healthier the offspring. I remember reading some where that children of mixed race are far less likely to inherit genetic defects that are prevailant in either race.

So, I think that if you care about the health of your children, you should really look for some genetic diversity in a mate. It would however be inconsistent, and strange to bar incest for this reason, yet allow other people with a high risk of having children with genetic defects to reproduce. Making it clear that it isn't the risks to the children that is being considered, but instead people's general dislike of the idea of incest.

Though I'm not entirely sure what I think about certain forms of eugenics to tell you the truth. I find it conceivable that I could be convinced that attempting to remove genetic defects in the population like this is perhaps the right thing to do. I just have not yet been convinced, and I'm not sure if it is worth the suspension of someone's rights to repoduce.

I do think that the subject is open ended at the very least.

In any case whoever, after an individual was willing to get sterilized, there then would be no reason why they couldn't procede to enguage in sexual activities with a close relative.

170. Top 6 Incestuous Relationships In The Bible

Comment #185591 by Mitchell Gilks on May 28, 2008 at 6:47 am

46. Comment #185551 by mordacious1

That is irrelevent for two reasons. One, I specified "consenting adults", and two, it is not more wrong when a child is raped by a relative. The child rape aspect is the thing that's wrong, not the incest aspect. Unless you plan to form an argument why incestuous child rape is "more wrong" then I fail to see the relevence, and am slightly annoyed that you ignored the fact that I specified "consenting adults".

171. Jamy Ian Swiss - Skepticism and the Art and Philosophy of Magic

Comment #185573 by Mitchell Gilks on May 28, 2008 at 5:25 am

Skepticism isn't "working". I've had numerous self-proclaimed skeptics tell me how that Darren Brown guys stuff was legit, when it clearly isn't.

What I've noticed is that people reject supernatural, and paranormal claims, and accept natural ones, or purportedly scientific ones. Using a standard that merely superficially draws a line at supernatural and natural. This is not skepticism, nor rationalism.

On another note, this guy clearly is an RD fan, he echoed things RD has said.

172. Car dealership advert tells atheists to 'shut up'

Comment #185564 by Mitchell Gilks on May 28, 2008 at 4:36 am

Ha, this is great. Now a new style of adervtisement begins, one even less respectful to the intellect of their demongraphics.

"Hey you! Yes, you specifically. Studies show that you're right about everything, and the people that disagree with you are innumerate, moronic fools, that need to shut up and sit down. Buy my brand of shoes!"

Oh a side note, funny enough, the mnemonic device I used to remember the Kanji for "ford" is "the ford Jesus, it does everything except walk on water". Because the primitive elements of the Kanji are "water" and "walk".

173. Religion is a product of evolution, software suggests

Comment #185550 by Mitchell Gilks on May 28, 2008 at 4:00 am

This seems awefully ad hoc'd to me.

174. Top 6 Incestuous Relationships In The Bible

Comment #185538 by Mitchell Gilks on May 28, 2008 at 3:29 am

What is the point of this exactly? Beyond the "yuck" factor, what is the secular argument against incest between two consenting adults?

The best one I've heard is that there is a higher change of genetic defects, but then shouldn't all persons that have a risk of having children with genetic defects be barred from being able to reproduce? And isn't that a form of eugenics?

I think that it's pretty gross, and it seems everyone else on here does as well, beyond that however, why is it morally wrong?

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

Comment #185534 by Mitchell Gilks on May 28, 2008 at 3:14 am

"Why won't you die!? AHHHH!"

176. The Mind-Altering Role of Incense in Religion

Comment #184901 by Mitchell Gilks on May 26, 2008 at 11:36 am

Well, if a church was giving out free weed with services I'd go everyday. Hells yeah, get wacked, listen to stories, what could be better?

177. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #184898 by Mitchell Gilks on May 26, 2008 at 11:16 am

I'm wishing cancer upon him as we speak. HEAD-CANCER! Do-do-do, do-do-do (*waves hands about*).

178. Animal Science Without Evolution

Comment #184892 by Mitchell Gilks on May 26, 2008 at 10:54 am

I should write myself some books, and I make a lot of money. You guys are seriously lucky that I am not a scum bag. I am pretty confident that I would do a much better job arguing for the things I disagree with than the people that actually do argue for them.

Write these books for a nice christian audiance, and find a nice round about, and often completely direct way of going on and on for pages saying:

"hey, you know all those things you don't like? Well they're lies, and guess what? All those things you do like, well they're proven scientific facts. So just sit back, and feel the calming air come over you, and let all your worries melt away. There is tons and tons of evidence for everything you'd like to be true, and everything you don't like has been disproven. Yup, all is well, all is good."

I first started to be aware of how well such a tactic worked when I was in my early teens. Though I still have not been desensitized to it. It still blows me away how anyone can do that. Just plainly, and bald-facely lie and assert things that aren't even remotely true, and they have absolutely no rational or empiricle backing for, but at the same time lie and assert that you have all the backing in the world. What is the worst about this tactic is that it shows an utter contempt, and complete lack of respect for the people you are addressing. A complete confidence that they are morons that won't actually look into any of the things you are saying.

It is a sheer example of an evolved social trait being used against people. They don't expect that someone would make such huge claims, and such positive, and forward assertions without having good reason, or without there being any truth at all to them. Lies are generally conservative, and tentative in our experience. So the bigger the lie, the more likely people are to believe it. It takes a special type of person to be able to lie like that. It fundamentally only works though because they are saying something they want to be true. Even a conservative lie about something they are indifferent about, or something they would rather not be true would be instantly recognized and dismissed as such. So I guess it takes two to tango, as they say.

I've thought about it, I think I could do a better job than most of them. I just know that I am incapable of such disgusting behaviour, I am honestly blown away and stunned that so many people are actually capable of it.

179. 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.

180. 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.

181. 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.

182. 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.

183. 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."

184. 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.

185. 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.

186. 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.

187. 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.

188. 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.

189. 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.

190. 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.

191. 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.

192. 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.

193. 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.

194. 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.

195. Kenya mob reportedly burns 11 'witches'

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

Sickening.

196. 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.

197. 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

198. 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.

199. 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.

200. 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!