201. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #219891 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Human doesn't actually have anything to do with species, it is anything that carries the characteristics of a person. Homo habalis is considered to be the first "human species". If aliens exist, and are individual persons, then they would also be human.

202. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #219886 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 4:52 pm

21. Comment #219884 by mordacious1

We just have to get on corrupting their young with our evil decadence faster. No youth can resist video games, junk-food and porn for long!

Yeah, I gave it back to him. This site wasn't big enough for two of those hats. Besides, my new avatar is much, MUCH better.

203. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #219877 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 4:40 pm

13. Comment #219872 by mordacious1

Maybe we need a toys for radical-muslim-beliefs campaign? Think that could work?

"For not desiring to take over the world anymore, you get a tickle me elmo!"

204. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #219874 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 4:37 pm

14. Comment #219873 by kkelly

How gracious of them. I really hope the time never comes when the best thing that can be said about me is that I don't support the murdering of groups I disagree with/don't like.

205. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #219858 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Well damn. Scary. I can understand free speech and expression, but the university is under no obligation to grant hate-mongers a medium to spew their hate speech. They should be yelling it on the street from behind carbaord signs, like the rest of the lunatics.

206. Biology Enters 'The Matrix' Through New Computer Language

Comment #219848 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 4:00 pm

I'll believe this singularity buisness when I see it, until then, it's merely si-fi.

This article is interesting though. Mt pc will try to replace me, but I'll replace it instead!

207. Write to UCF

Comment #219835 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 3:42 pm

254. Comment #219833 by Brian English

Post was addressed to you, but it wasn't against anything you said. As I said, I thought that you agreed. My example was maybe superfluous.

208. Write to UCF

Comment #219834 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 3:41 pm

248. Comment #219757 by Layla Nasreddin

It is a conundrum...one I wish I had the answer to, but I don't. It is exceptually hard to tell someone that their beliefs and ideas are stupid without them taking it as a personal attack. I think this should almost always be avoided. The only time I would do something like that is if they were trying to push them on me or others. Or aquire them undue respect. Beyond that I would try to avoid speaking in a way that insults them, even if that was not my intention

209. Write to UCF

Comment #219832 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 3:35 pm

252. Comment #219825 by Brian English

I wasn't addressing anything you said. I was merely further elucidating my own point. I thought you had agreed.

210. Write to UCF

Comment #219720 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 12:33 pm

245. Comment #219717 by Steve Zara

Flattery gets you nowhere...but by all means, continue!

I can be marginally civil when I'm not sure who's right, better yet, not sure there is a "right". Perhaps, "most appriopriate". Even if we don't come away agreeing, perhaps we have both at least refined our views, if only slightly. What more could one ask for?

211. Write to UCF

Comment #219712 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 12:14 pm

243. Comment #219708 by Steve Zara

I just couldn't take him very seriously. I thought it was pretty funny. Bonzai has an excellent sense of humour too. I especially liked that "angy AND dumb" remark.

212. Write to UCF

Comment #219692 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 11:29 am

240. Comment #219680 by Steve Zara


http://richarddawkins.net/article,1643,Youtube-hater-I-respect-your-right-to-free-speech,Brian-Sapient

213. Write to UCF

Comment #219638 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 10:33 am

233. Comment #219629 by Steve Zara

Did you read that thread in the "backlash" section where I showed disapproval of them and sapient and Kelly showed up to freak out at me. Calling me a christian in disguise and quote mining my posts. It's still there. I thought it was fairly amusing myself. I was happy when I noticed that this site no longer links to them.

214. Write to UCF

Comment #219633 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 10:30 am

230. Comment #219626 by Dr Doctor

I thought that it legitimized a specific religion, and gave the impression that it is to be taken more seriously than others. I don't take christianity any more seriously than I do any other religion, old or new, dead or alive.

215. Write to UCF

Comment #219628 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 10:25 am

227. Comment #219620 by Steve Zara

Oh I upset people all the time, and I know exactly why, but I'm not willing to change. I'm not exactly anti-social, but I don't get along well with others, because I've yet to master the art of keeping my mouth shut.

I'm pretty brutally honest.

216. Write to UCF

Comment #219621 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 10:17 am

I'm opposed to the descration thing. Remember we discussed that in some length on a couple other threads. Hell, I was even opposed to the blasphemy challenge.

217. Write to UCF

Comment #219618 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 10:13 am

223. Comment #219615 by Steve Zara

You haven't upset me...but then I'm the one that's been attacking your position this entire time. Or at least that's how my brain sees it.

218. Write to UCF

Comment #219616 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 10:10 am

222. Comment #219613 by Steve Zara

Why are you talking about descrating a eucharist? I thought we were talking about telling them exactly what we think of their ideas when pushed into the public sphere, and used as a foundation to seek political or social action against members of a secular society. Disallowing them from taking such action under ridiculous premises, and unloading polemics.

219. Write to UCF

Comment #219612 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 10:05 am

219. Comment #219610 by Steve Zara

And that culture is only coincidentally linked to that geography.

220. Write to UCF

Comment #219609 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 10:03 am

Steve, for someone who thinks the best of people, aren't you being uncharitable with this "they" buisness?

How many people have said "oh yes, I think that's true of every single catholic" when you have confronted them? Or have they not attempted to clarify that they did not mean that as DD is trying to now?

Why not assume the best of them? I don't assume the best of people, but even I assume they don't mean all of them.

221. Write to UCF

Comment #219604 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 9:59 am

210. Comment #219601 by Steve Zara

I don't think that is at all true, but the golden rule is insufficent in any case. Actions are easily rationalised under it. If I'm a straight crazy guy, I could think that I'd deserve death if I were gay. Doesn't favor well for homosexuals. If I were a male misogynist I could think that if I were a women I would deserve all that they get.

That aside, I don't think for a second that most people treat others how they would like themselves to be treated. Just look at the state of the world.

The geographical locations are mere correlation, not causation.

222. Write to UCF

Comment #219600 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 9:52 am

202. Comment #219590 by Steve Zara

In both cases I think you're mistaken. Though that is beside the point, it is no less an unevident assumption that generalizes a group. In fact it generalizes a far larger group.

223. Write to UCF

Comment #219596 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 9:49 am

201. Comment #219588 by Steve Zara

Those are not equivolent. Catholicism is a set of tenets and dogams that one follows of their own volition. Atheism is a position on a single question, and America is merely a geographical location.

Also, I think you are blind to history and world affairs if you think people are generally reasonable and good. If that were true, then every human right, freedom, and piece of knowledge would not have been hard fought. It would not require the indoctrination of young, and the deaths of elder generations before things started to change.

Most of the things we hold dear, as moral and ethical principles are nothing but concepts we've been taught are good and should be respected. In most cases this is true, but it doesn't change the fact that they were hard fought, and after a political or societal change it takes a generation or two for the populus to catch up. Time enough for those solidified in their views to die, and the newer generations that have been indoctrinated into holding the principles takes over.

224. Write to UCF

Comment #219587 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 9:40 am

198. Comment #219584 by Steve Zara

I think solid evidence is needed if one is going to generalise about the attitudes and possible actions of hundreds of millions of people.

I would feel uncomfortable about doing that.

225. Write to UCF

Comment #219561 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 6:09 am

Bonzai, if you're still around. Were you introduced to english at a young age? Or did you only start to really get to learn it when you moved to Canada? I presume you took english in school in Hong Kong (I believe that is where you said you were from), but if it's anything like French in Canadian schools, then it doesn't really count.

I ask because you are better than I am at english, so I dream to be that fluent in Japanese someday. I'm wondering how long it took you. (I'm not crazy enough to think I'll be fluent in two years, by the way. I only meant enough to grasp it at a decent level).

226. Write to UCF

Comment #219560 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 6:02 am

187. Comment #219559 by Laurie Fraser

That, I didn't know.

I'd like to get into translating in a couple years (maybe) when I hope to be good enough at Japanese, but before I do, I'm going to need to take a course in english.

227. Write to UCF

Comment #219558 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 5:58 am

185. Comment #219557 by Laurie Fraser

I don't mind at all. Should have seen how bad I was before I owned a computer. When I was like nineteen, I could barely spell my name, and never used punctuation at all. I still don't know how to use punctuation, it's all guess work, but I don't get too many complaints in that respect. I figure either far fewer people know a lot about punctuation as those that do about grammer and spelling, or I'm winging it half decently.

Without people pointing out my mistakes, I'd never learn. I don't like it when it was just a brain fart mistake though. I'm rather self conscious about those, but when I didn't know that it was a mistake, I am happy that it was pointed out.

228. Write to UCF

Comment #219554 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 5:42 am

179. Comment #219548 by Bonzai

That is very true I think. I have an especially hard time translating turns of phrases into writing, or spelling certain words I don't pronounce correctly. Though I think it's mostly dyslexia. I know the difference, but I replace words that only sound a little similar, or make weird spelling mistakes with letter combinations that sound similar. I think because I didn't take english in school I go almost one hundred percent on intuition and ear.

Though I have been making analogous mistakes with the kanji. Misplacing them for words that mean something similar, or sound the same. I also have a smaller problem remembering the order of the primatives. The stroke order hasn't given me much trouble though. I have about an 80% recollection rate on reviews, and about half my mistakes are the problems I described, the other half are forgetting them outright.

I don't know, I'd probably use both. If I thought about it I would likely go with "most stupid" but if I wasn't thinking I would likely just as easily say "Stupidest".

229. Write to UCF

Comment #219543 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 5:16 am

173. Comment #219542 by Dr Doctor

Ghetto.

230. Write to UCF

Comment #219541 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 5:11 am

170. Comment #219539 by Dr Doctor

What is the tea selection like? You seem to have revealed knowledge.

231. Write to UCF

Comment #219540 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 5:09 am

169. Comment #219538 by Laurie Fraser

I'm dyslexic, so I misplace words that rhyhme. Don't get me started on words that only vary by those degrees. Even with a 50/50 chance I seem to always put the wrong "its/it's" down.

I need to go over posts four/five times before they are intelligible.

I tried to write a book once...the editing was so demanding that I couldn't go through with it. Gave up about a hundred pages in.

232. Write to UCF

Comment #219534 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 5:01 am

162. Comment #219530 by Steve Zara

Settin' the bar kinda low there Steve. Also, don't you mean psychopath? Why can't a sociopath be a decent person?

163. Comment #219531 by Dr Doctor

Are there cups in orbit of the pot aswell?

233. Write to UCF

Comment #219526 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 4:42 am

156. Comment #219524 by Steve Zara

So you'd just like it to be true? Well, I don't agree that most people are decent. I don't assume the worst of people, but I'm also not in the business of believing what I'd like to be true either.

234. Write to UCF

Comment #219521 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 4:16 am

150. Comment #219517 by Steve Zara

What are you basing this speculation on Steve? Where are all these Catholics in opposition to it? Do we have an article by one perhaps?

152. Comment #219520 by Steve Zara

Consider it unpilfered.

235. Write to UCF

Comment #219518 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 4:12 am

144. Comment #219511 by articulett

Well then prepare for Jesus' mysterious wrath. Rest assured, however you die, that was exactly what Jesus planned.

236. Write to UCF

Comment #219516 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 4:10 am

146. Comment #219513 by Steve Zara

It isn't against all Catholics. It is only against the ones both in support of the bullying tactics, and that think that the premise that the cracker has human rights deserves politcal credence in secular society. I'm on the side of every Catholic who agrees with me. ;)

I think it's time we discuss the terms of our schism. We get the frilly dresses, and you can keep the funny hats.

237. Write to UCF

Comment #219509 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 3:50 am

139. Comment #219506 by Steve Zara

I just finished saying that yelling "you are wrong" was not my goal, or even relevant to my goal at this point. Stoping them, and demonstrating my complete lack of credence for their idiocy would be my goal. I mean, I said three times that we don't have to convince them, Steve.

Then you are suggesting a war of ideas, this is a battle. A softer approach may be better in the long run, but I wouldn't want to risk casualties under the hopes that it is.

238. Write to UCF

Comment #219507 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 3:42 am

138. Comment #219505 by Dr Doctor

When was it? Just after World War II that the Catholic Church officially dropped their charge of "deicide" they had charged all jews with for centeries?

239. Write to UCF

Comment #219504 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 3:36 am

136. Comment #219503 by Steve Zara

I disagree. If you don't completely reject their premise and grounds for their behaviour as the idiocy and insanity it is, then on what grounds can you say that their actions are uncalled for?

How strongly can you disapprove while pretending that their belief that the cracker has human rights is even subatomically reasonable?

240. Write to UCF

Comment #219502 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 3:32 am

133. Comment #219500 by Brian English

If I see someone beating the crap out of someone else because they are convinced he is possessed by any evil spirit, I am not going to try to politely and rationally convince him he's belief is mistaken. I'm going to make him stop by whatever means necessary. Credence for insanity ends when members of society start falling under its weight.

241. Write to UCF

Comment #219499 by Mitchell Gilks on July 27, 2008 at 3:21 am

82. Comment #219424 by Steve Zara

Steve, I think you are conflating goals here. Convincing Catholics that the wafer is just a cracker, and disallowing them to bully secular society based on the premise that it is magic are two entirely different things.

For the former, I am 100% on your side, and agree with every word. We need free, intellectual, polite, and rational discourse.

For the latter, as Sam Harris has suggested, we only need words like "evidence" "reason" and "bullshit." For this the goal is not to convince them that they are wrong, it's to demand that they put up or shut up. If they want to try to have public policy dictated by their idiocy, then it is up to them to convince us that it is true, not the other way 'round.

I think that such bullying tactics, based on the premise that the cracker has human rights deserves exactly zero respect, and our strongest rhetoric. Taking a mild and polite approach to them bulling secular society into compliance is counter-productive. We don't have to convince them of anything, we only need demonstrate that we won't stand for their behaviour in the public sphere.

There are two entirely different goals, that require two entirely different approaches. We need not convince them of a damn thing before we can absolutely not tolerate their bulling.

242. A Holocaust Denier Hits Manhattan (And Hearts Hitchens)

Comment #219350 by Mitchell Gilks on July 26, 2008 at 7:57 pm

40. Comment #219348 by RamziD

If you can't beat 'em join 'em.

Eh...and if you can beat 'em, join 'em anyway.

243. Write to UCF

Comment #219339 by Mitchell Gilks on July 26, 2008 at 6:07 pm

66. Comment #219337 by Brian English

I just hope that I have the super ability to not get any balder.

244. Write to UCF

Comment #219329 by Mitchell Gilks on July 26, 2008 at 5:05 pm

61. Comment #219327 by Layla Nasreddin

I understand tact, and I am (I think anyway) for the most part, tactful. Though sometimes honesty is the best policy. When something seems utterly ridiculous, sometimes it is important to point this out.

Secular school policy should not even entertain the ridiculous in their deliberations. Strong disaproval is more effective in this case, I think.

245. Write to UCF

Comment #219323 by Mitchell Gilks on July 26, 2008 at 4:49 pm

57. Comment #219318 by Layla Nasreddin

I find what you say here incredibly weak. No matter what I say and how clear I am people could misunderstand me. Beyond being as clear as I can be, and trying to make an effort to be understood, the ball is then in their court.

The fact that whatever desecrated thing doesn't hold value to everyone is indeed relevent. When they try to legistlate what one can and cannot say, about certain things, depict, and cannot depict certain people, or destroy and cannot destroy certain books. Then it very much is relevent that we don't believe their idiocy, and are not held under the same obligations to ablidge them.

If someone stole the book, the scroll, the depiction, even the cracker. Then, come and ask for some form of action. Beyond that, it is not only relevent, but it is important to point out that we will not tolerate soceity at large paying anymore credence to the idea that you can't ripp up a qur'an (that you own) than we would about a ziggy comic.

I would avoid doing anything that needlessly upsets people, sure. Though to demonstrate that I will not be subject to their religions rules, or their beliefs, I definitely would do it.

246. Write to UCF

Comment #219314 by Mitchell Gilks on July 26, 2008 at 4:30 pm

52. Comment #219307 by Cartomancer

Oh, and fat and bald does nothing for me whatsoever.

247. Write to UCF

Comment #219312 by Mitchell Gilks on July 26, 2008 at 4:24 pm

49. Comment #219299 by Layla Nasreddin

I'm with you in that I also was far more tactful in my letters, to both this president, and the president of P.Z's university.

I just didn't mention it, though if I did, I would not exude an air of respect, or consideration for such idiocy. I just opted to not say anything at all in that regard.

Though if I felt that specifically was the issue, then I would not pretend that the premise that crackers turn into magical-first-centery-prophets was even remotely reasonable.

As an analogy, this whole issue of creationism and ID in the schools. That is not a reasonable position. That the universe was created sometime 4004 B.C.E. That's plain insanity. I think you do no one help if you pretend that these ideas are reasonable.

This is a whole other issue from allowing them to harbour them, or having get-to-gethers where they discuss them. We have entered into the realm of the public sphere, where punches are not pulled. If you don't want to be called on for your idiocy, then don't expect to try to have it taught in schools, or have it considered with regard to policy towards members of society.

When they try to get kids expelled over something like this, because of their insane beliefs about crackers, they have pushed this into the public sphere, not us. They should then expect the full force of our rhetoric.

It may not be helpful to be honest with your opinion (I in fact think that it very much is) but ignoring it and pretending it's not there is no more helpful at the very least.

In light of what I've read here, I somewhat regret not espousing my true feelings about the core of this issue. Then they would know that there is at least one more that is not willing to pay any public credence to such idiocy.

248. Write to UCF

Comment #219265 by Mitchell Gilks on July 26, 2008 at 2:34 pm

24. Comment #219221 by Steve Zara

I think you're just being contrary now, Steve. He merely says that such beliefs are idiotic, and don't cohere with reality. On both counts I think you agree (I know I do). No where does he even remotely imply that they should not be allowed to harbour such beliefs. Though he very rightly does imply that they should have zero sway over political, or soceital actions or policies.

What specifically that he said did you take as saying they shouldn't be allowed to believe certain things? Also, do you think that RD holds an such an opinion when it comes to anything?

After all, he recently said on that news show "you're free to have your belief in Adam, it is however wrong."

At the very least I think you're being uncharitable, and at most, boxing a strawman.

249. A Holocaust Denier Hits Manhattan (And Hearts Hitchens)

Comment #219242 by Mitchell Gilks on July 26, 2008 at 2:10 pm

I have to say though, that the journalism in this article is far below par. It is just trying to show what a horrible person he is. They didn't engage him in any meaningful way, or show anykind of impartialism.

It doesn't matter how sure you are that you're right and your opposition is wrong, it doesn't make it ok to act like that.

Damn though, those guys that showed up for his talk sure seemed insaned.

I had someone show up on one of my youtube videos the other day, talking about all the feets in human history that are attributable to aliens. They were quite serious. Now, I'm more than confident that he is wrong, but I at least attempted to engage him in a fair way. Evaluate what he had to say, and say specifically what I thought was wrong with it.

This type of exchange is a complete waste of time, and does nothing more than reenforce, and solidify views on both sides.

250. A Holocaust Denier Hits Manhattan (And Hearts Hitchens)

Comment #219175 by Mitchell Gilks on July 26, 2008 at 12:03 pm

He sure is a disgusting little person. I eagerly await Christopher Hitchen's response.