351. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170267 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Well as long as he isn't dressing up naked pregnat women to look like whales, or trying to have sex with them. Perhaps living on an all-whale diet when trying to save them, then I don't think he is insane for being committed to saving the whales.

352. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170257 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 2:21 pm

PETA has been insane since the beginning. Green peace though used to be a an important and inspiring force in the world. The boat that they take the name from, which they called green peace because they stocked it with as much weed as they did food. They set it on the shore of an island that was scheduled for testing a nuclear device for something like 2 months until they agreed not to use it. That was what started Green Peace. The founders left though, because it was hi-jacked by people that now focuse their efforts fighting against "establishments", and scientific research in the ways of food production, and research to feed the impoverished.

They are run by, and followed by idiots that just like the idea of things like "mother earth" and are completely loopy.

On "Bullshit" they had a women go around with a patition to ban "dihydrogen monoxide" and hundreds of people signed before anyone even asked what it was. At one of those protests.

Oh the daily show they interviewed a girl raving about animal rights at that consert about that stuff last year, and she turned out to be on an all-meat diet. I can't express my loathing of these people.

353. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170251 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 2:08 pm

The people that have the most to gain from winning the campaign against animal rights and environmental concerns could not do a better job of discrediting the proponents with claims of being fringe insane weirdoes than they do themselves.

Supposing they had a direct line to Zues, and asked for his help, I highly doubt he could make them look more insane.

354. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170244 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Also, I think the biggest obsticle in the way of animal rights in PETA. They are fucking insane, and make us all look crazy.

With commericals of pregnat women in cages and shit. The average person doesn't share the opinion that we are just another animal...you can't persuade people by just presenting them with your conclusions without making a case. They just look completely insane. With little kids look at her and stuff. Nothing comes close to retarding the animal right campaign like PETA.

Green peace as also gone insane, and become anti-establishment and anti-science in the last couple decades. They are losing it for us all because their all insane lunatics.

They're all emotion, and not action. They don't even know what's bad anymore.

PETA even openly supports zoophila...animal rape. I hate them so much.

355. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170230 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Maybe you only read the accounts and don't live them inside your head. Perhaps it is a lack of imagination on your part.

If they are imagining dead people, and then crying over them then they are crying over imaginary dead people, not real ones. Without a referent you can only use your imagination to get there, and I really don't think that counts.

but if you can't brought to tears by human and animal suffering then, well...

No, it doesn't bring me to tears, it pisses me off, and does make me sad, but not bring me to tears. I am a vegan that consciously avoids killing bugs if I have the choice. I actively campaign for animal rights, and do as much as I can for the environment effort as well. If someone isn't matching my efforts, but is sheding tears, that doesn't cut it in my opinion. That just pissess me off, it's empty and does absolutely nothing to help. I prefer action to empty emotional displays.

356. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170216 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 1:43 pm

(because straight people think the word holds power over us, which it doesn't).

I'd prefer it if you said "homophobes" or something.

The only way anyone (not you) can claim it isn't natural is by demonstrating that there are no examples of it in nature -- however there is overwhelming evidence that it does occur (hence the term binary).

I think that is a complete non-issue. It wouldn't matter if it were natural or not, none of my favorite things are natural. I ain't given them up just because some idiot thinks "natural equals good".

357. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170208 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 1:35 pm

I don't know if it is pretending or genuinely clueless. I think I am quite clueless about certain emotional things, and genuinely feel uncomfortable in situations where there is too much touchy feely stuffs going on. I am a fairly "abstract" person in general.

Oh no, no you misunderstand. I am only talking about pretending you don't feel an emotion when you do. I am the same way, I get extremely uncomfortable around overt displays of emotion. Also, a lot of people I personally think must exagerate their emotional state, because I've never in my life acted the way some people do.

So I think the faking works both ways, pretending you are not feeling emotion, and pretending you are feeling more than you are. Perhaps I'm wrong, and they are just a lot more emotional than I am. I know that when people get really emotional I am dying to leave.

What bothers me the most is people that act far more emotional about things I hold dear than I do, and yet do absolutely nothing about it. Like meat eaters crying about animal rights pisses me off. Or people balling about the deaths of people they have never met, or even seen before. That I don't understand at all. I feel bad of course, but to cry about it? Just seems weird to me.

358. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170168 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 1:04 pm

I think men are/have been trained to not pay attention to feelings, or carry on as if they don't have them. Just my opinion mind you.

I think that makes them cowardly and intellectually dishonest. They might as well feign a number of other things while they're at playing pretend.

359. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170157 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Traditional Japanese love stories almost always have an unhappy ending, so my brother tells me. Rather like the Greek tragic theatre. Life imitates art here I suspect - in my case at least...

Well I wouldn't know about the traditional stuff, since I'm a big fan of anime and manga, which I'm sure many do draw from tradition, as any person would from their own tradition.

I know that plenty do end extremely poorly, the worst I can think of that I've see was "Blue Drop" which has been described as emotional rape. It is all seemingly set up for a happy ending, and then it all goes to shit in the end, and everything is lying in shattered pieces at your feet. Everything that could go bad goes bad, and no one has a happy ending.

Like I said, they generally go fifty-fifty whether they have a happy ending or not, but some of them just have extremely tragic endings that you don't expect.

One of the reasons why I like anime and manga is that it isn't a given that it will all turn out like it is with western stuff 99% of the time. You never know who is going to die, or will win out, or lose out until it's all over.

Some endings just make you scream "WTF!!" Though I somewhat like that, it at the very least means I didn't predict the ending.

I know a hell of a lot of fiction is drawn from Chinese mythology. As I understand it all that stuff about spiritual energy, that they love to make use of in the mega-famous anime like Dragon Ball Z is taken from Chinese mythology. On Naruto they use the Chinese zodiac made into hand signals to form zeals to use magic.

360. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170129 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Dawkins also says that in order to be called God it needs to have created the universe. So clearly if an alien did that it would fit Dawkins idea of God. Perhaps you should go to page one and read that highlighted passage someone posted that says just that. You appear to be selectively reading.

361. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170121 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Ok, I misunderstood you before Bonzai, I agree with all of that. Personally I'm of the mind that it just turned out that way, and it worked, so that is what was kept, simple as that. I am also curious about how rigid it would be. I would think there would always be an advantage to having a few exceptions to the rules to perhaps fill certain holes left by the norm. Like a few promiscuous rodents to fill the gap of "widowed" rodents, as it were. Things like that. I do think that these are questions that can be answered by evolutionary psychology though.

Also though, because humans are so wide spread, and damn good at survive, any rigidness that might have existed say 50 thousand years ago could have easily slacked by now without significant damage to our survivability. There would be no selection pressure keeping it rigid, and making sure that none that diverge reprocreate and survive. Especially since the establishment of civilization.

362. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170112 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 11:52 am

342. Comment #170110 by Cartomancer

From the heart dear boy, from the heart... (*blushes*)

I suspected as much. I originally was going to ask if you wrote it, but if you hadn't I wasn't sure how you would take my asking. So I thought it would be better to play dumb.

It is very very good, you have talent. Not that I am a worthy judge of poetry or anything, but I like it a lot.

363. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170111 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 11:48 am

Well Bonzai a women gave a lecture durring beyond belief 2.0 where they took two closely related species of rodent, one was monogamous, while the other promiscuous, and found a different in a chemical inhibiter in their brains. By switching the chemical balance two species they were able to the make the monogamous ones promiscuous, and visa versa. So I do think that is powerful evidence that such a thing has to do at least somewhat with a chemical balance.

Since humans have big brains, I don't know if we could be controlled so easily, though if someone were merely predisposed to monogami or promiscuity, it would likely result in that end, unless they had good reason to behave in another manner, and to consciously fight against their desires, as we all know people are quite capable of.

364. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170106 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 11:39 am

336. Comment #170083 by Cartomancer

What is that from? Because it's excellent. I used to write a lot of (bad) poetry before I got into philosophy.

In the story I mentioned, the friend in question reacts in perhaps the worst possible way. The friend who was in love with her (Hitomi) kisses her friend (Nana) out of the blue, but she gives absolutely no reaction. She completely ignores it. So devistated Hitomi conspires to go to a different school for her senier year. They meet up again six months later by coincidence, and by this time Nana has realised how much Hitomi actually meant to her. Only in fiction eh? Unlike most stories like this though they actually get together in the first one, and then 3 more stories focusing on them and the developement of their relationship follows which are just excellent. Almost all yuri surrounds irrequited love, and trying to bridge the gap. It's usually about fifty fifty for it turning out, or it ending tragically. I gotta say, I prefer the ones that turn out.

The most famous current ongoing yuri manga "Strawberry shake sweet" is a comedy about a teen idol that has follow in love with the girl that joins her agency, and is a potential rival. Everyone basically conspires to keep the rather dumb new model oblivious to her rather overt attempts are expressing her feelings. I hope it gets made into an anime.

Straight romance seems so much easier on so many levels. Although straigh fictional romances and love stories don't interest me in the least. Can't get enough of it when it's yuri though, it just so much more interesting.

337. Comment #170091 by Bonzai

I just don't like being friends with people I'm attracted it, it's distracting and awkward. I feel uncomfortable. I prefer the line to be drawn quite thickly in the sand.

365. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170090 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 11:05 am

I think Pinker nails it in the first sentence. If you take science to not just mean the discoveries and knowledge aquired by it, but also take it to mean the secular methodology of science, then yes it does.

If you adopt how science works, and it's methods as your epistemic criteria for knowledge, and evidence, then it very much kills off superstition, and makes believe in god a violation of the methodology.

So, I completely agree with Pinker, but supposing they just mean our current scientific knowledge, then of course not. Our current knowledge doesn't kill of fairies, and ghosts, let alone gods.

366. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170078 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 10:45 am

What happens if you fall in love with a very close friend but can't have a sexual relationship with them because they've got someone else? Oh yes, that's right, four years of treatment for clinical depression - how silly of me to forget.

Yes, quite. I am lucky enough to have never been in that position, I imagine that it would be perhaps the worst possible position to be in. I've read plenty of stories that surround the idea, and as I understand it one is trapped between their desire to touche their friend, and move it into that next step, but also the fear of ruining the friendship, and losing them forever. So they are trapped within a buffer of where they are close, but not nearly as close as they want to be, and afraid to get closer because they might lose the position they already occupy.

My favorite story of this vine is "Even if we're not friends" by Morinaga Milk. Which turned out quite nicely for them, but only after about 3 years of suffering on the part of one of them. Definitely would be a terrible situation to be in.

367. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170072 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 10:38 am

I am always cautious about attempts to directly apply observations of the animal world to humans. You are assuming procreation must be the goal of dating, what if the ladies just want to have fun? How do you explain condoms with evolution?

Please read my link to Kenan Malik from my post to Teratonis.

But regardless, what you write above was not what Teratonis said . He basically said women take men (him?) to the cleaner, he was referring to wealth and material possessions. Within your theory the man can still have gotten the lady(ladies) to pay,--or at least to pay for herself which is often the norm for younger folks anyway,--if he has other attractive qualities.

Now why is it that wealth and material possession are often the "stuffs" that men have to "strutt" in order to win the lady? My mother told me in her generation a men can be a real ugly toad and a bore but if he has a good professional job he would have a lot of women waiting to marry him. Too bad for Teratonis, I don't think it is like that anymore.

Women were more attracted to men with good income in my mother's generation than they are now, why? Have they undergone some mutations?

It is not because of evolution that men in general make more money than women, it is a socio-political-cultural thing.

Teratonis' idea that wealthy women must have gotten their wealth from some other men is also quite ridiculous. I don't know how old he is, but all my women friends work, and some are doing quite well financially, Oh, I know, Teratonis would tell us that they are probably sleeping with their male bosses.

I merely argued that it's origins can be traced to an evolutionary explanation, not that it still applies today. It clearly doesn't.

Why do men make more money generally? Well we both know why, you answered your own question, and I don't think that you doubted that I would agree. Hell, why not go further, in many places in the world women are virtual sex-slaves with no rights or freedoms, sold of as young as nine. We clearly have the power to subvert, and rise up against our evolutionary programming.

That was the main point I was trying to make. I was trying to explain exactly why people don't behave like Teratonis claimed they did. I was agreeing with you that he was wrong. I only meant to say that you probably wouldn't like my reductionist view of why that is.

I checked out that link, it was quite long, and the first few paragraphes seemed to be just stressing the writers dislike of the idea of explaining such things with evolutionary psychology.

Personally I am saddened, and feel that humanity is truly impoverished by the subjagation of women throughout human history. The poets, the philosophers, the scientists, the artists, and just all around brilliant minds that were disallowed education, or the freedom to persue their dreams because they were lucky enough to be born female. We have very few such women in history, only because they were not allowed to live their own lives, and were considered incapable of doing such things.

I share your disgust with what Teratonis suggests, and also agreed that he couldn't be more wrong.

368. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170009 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 9:03 am

If you have a lover who is first a friend, you will have no trouble during those times when the sex part of the equation is off. But a sex partner who isn't a friend? That's why god gave you hands. :-)
Ste5e

Again, you guys are just clearly using terms differently than I am.

369. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170008 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 9:00 am

Maybe having a sexual partner and friend in the same person is kind of like multi tasking.

I see it more like calling a pet a family member. You might love your pet, and be willing to do a lot for them, but it's a little insulting to the real family-members to put them in a league with the pets.

A lot of people find it a complement to call lovers their friends, I don't. I care a hell of a lot less about my friends. I would hope the same is true for them.

370. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170003 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 8:51 am

Amazingly enough, you can actually have a sexual relationship with a woman and also have her as a friend.

We have different ideas of what constitutes a friend. I consider lovers to be a lot more than friends. I know many people get very close to their friends, but I don't. I have friends that are related to certain activities, or social obligations. Such as work friends and such. I have no friends that I do everything with, or talk to everyday, or would talk about my problems or personal life with. I'm a private person in that regard. If fact, if a friend starts going on and on about their personal problems or life, then it is a quick way to get me to avoid them. Nothing I dislike more.

So I do consider lovers and friends to be very different relationships. Though I understand that other people are different, and have extremely close friends.

371. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169990 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 8:22 am

Only 10% of our actions reaches conscious awareness, the action that takes focuse, and requires conscious awareness is a difficult task, multi-tasking is when you are doing more than one task that requires conscious awareness, and attention.

Driving on a nice day, opposed to driving in a snow storm for instance. I forget the names for the two types of actions.

372. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169984 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 8:17 am

If you have time to read then you have gone in way too early.

Men and women multi-task equally well when young, men gradually lose the ability as they get older, because the right and left hemispheres of the brain slightly seperate with age causing some difficulty with the two hemiphere's communicating with each other.

373. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169944 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 5:34 am

Funnily enough my fumbling attempts to initiate relationships with men generally end up with a new person who won't talk to me ever again...

That has been the eventual result of every friend I've ever had.

I should also mention that despite saying I understand the female sex, I have never actually been able to maintain a long term relationship. Though I'm only 23. Not that they end badly, they just don't last. Some ended badly...

374. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169942 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 5:32 am

The female gender is quite simple to explain. They are just like people, only more complex. They can do things like multitasking and remembering precise details from 20 years ago.

They're also good at never letting you forget about it.

375. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169939 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 5:28 am

I am somewhat baffled by the feminine gender to be honest.

Not me, I had just as many platonic girl friends in school as I did guy friends. My guy friends I really only hung around to do drugs and play video games with. So guys were my indoor friends, while girls were my outdoor friends.

my fumbling attempts to initiate relationships with women when I was younger ended up with me as close friend.

Personally the girls I am attracted to I am not interested in being friends with, I'm pretty overt with my intentions. In highschool I fell into the trap of just being friends a few times. If you aren't explicit, and the girl isn't attracted to you, she will pretend she doesn't know your intentions, and direct it into platonic town.

It's much easier to just get turned down than to waste all that time. The end result is the same. I know I have have no better success trying to get close and chummy first than I have just being open. Besides, if she isn't attracted to you when you first meet, than that isn't likely to change.

376. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169881 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 3:21 am

Oh. I suppose I never even considered that, and I should have really. I watch "tipping the valvet" recently about a lesbian in...I think it was the late 19th centery London. She had a boy friend, and everything at first, but she didn't realise she was gay until she fell for this performer that dressed like a dude. She commented that she didn't even know that was an option.

I grew up having homosexuality mentioned constantly. It has to defeat all other types of insults in frequency ten fold. I think I mentioned this awhile ago, but my mother asked me if I were gay because everytime homosexuality came up I didn't instantly affirm how straight I was, and then sling-mug in the direction of homosexuality. So I've known about it all of my life, and that is how pervasive the discrimination around here is. They have a gay rights parade that the Mayor of Fredericton fought tooth and nail for years, I don't think they allowed it until only a couple years ago.

I never really considered that it was something you had to figure out.

Thanks for sharing even though it was personal.

377. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169869 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 2:37 am

Wow Steve, I am amazed. We clearly grew up in completely different worlds. It makes me extremely jealous knowing what a backward place I grew up in. I just (wrongfully it would seem) assumed it was like that everywhere.

Also, you didn't know you were gay during school? If you don't mind me asking, (if it is too personal, or just something you'd rather not talk about then that's perfectly ok) when did you, and what made you realise? You say you didn't have a clue? So you weren't attracted to dudes at that time?

Personally I don't even remember a time when girls weren't on my brain every second thought.

378. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169857 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 1:40 am

257. Comment #169852 by Steve Zara

Also, I am not part of a "victim group"! I am a happy gay man who, as far as I can remember, has suffered no direct discrimination at all (mind you, I did come out rather late in life).

Now there is something I wonder about. Surely you knew you were gay in school? I wonder, because I assume that people that have racist things to do would generally not say them in the presence of people of that race, though it isn't as if they can tell you are gay. So didn't you suffer, like, a sort of third hand abuse? Where you constantly hear anti-gay rhetoric, and such? Wouldn't that be somewhat psychologically scaring in someway?

Sure, it being directed at your specifically has surely got to be a lot worse, but isn't just the general constant homophobia in the air make you scared and uncomfortable just by itself?

I would think so.

I often think about this, and feel bad, because although I've only met two gay guys that I knew were gay. Surely I've met several that were in the closet, and I feel bad that I causally espoused anti-gay rhetoric in school, and in my youth. Since I can remember how every day, and almost non-stop it was, I imagine even closeted homosexuals felt the burn of this.

This is why I agreed a few pages back that I think such speech, and slogans should be barred from educational institutions, clearly that would be an obsticle to learning. I just don't think we require actual laws to achieve that.

379. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169851 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 1:08 am

I know you are not going to like this, Bonzai, but I think I can make Terotornis's case for him, though clearly he is wrong in how he has presented it.

I think I can reduce it to an evolutionary explanation. In nature females chose the males, this is almost universally true. Males have to strut their stuff, as it were. Display their attributes to be attractive to the female. The mistake is in thinking women are only attracted to wealth, power, or possessions. Clearly many are, though clearly many are not. Athletism, intelligence, charisma, good-looks, even height or a million other things that could attract a female. Now this also isn't universally true, like most things about human beings, we no longer obey our natures as much as we once did. Or else sperm banks and such would not exist.

The female side of the species put the most into a family, a guy has to put in a couple minutes, tops, while a women must invest years. It is by no means unreasonable to expect a women to be picky, or look for the right attributes that they like in a man.

In today's day and age this is becoming less and less true though, women seem to strut their stuff just as much as men do, and attempt to show of their own attributes. I think this is largely because sex, and/or a relationship no longer equals a family by necessity. So now the goal of a relationship is a mutually contributed one, of love, sex and companionship.

I think what Teratornis has written is a mere caraciture of the above, and the about I don't think is true anymore. Personally, I am far more attracted to confident intelligent and independent women that prefer to pay their own way, and keep things on an even playing field. It's why I love college girls. :D

380. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169849 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 12:55 am

Steve, I would have taken offence, you are far better natured than I.

I think I have discussed this enough in at least the presence of Bonzai that he knows that I agree with everything he has said about sexual orientation, and it's origins being a non-issue.

To relate with MaxD, I grew up in a very small community, in the sticks. I never even met a person of a different race until I was like 14. Everyone was bigotted and racist that I grew up around and knew, which were ignorant fundamentalist christians. My real excape from this was the internet. I also had plenty of racist and bigotted frazing, and language worked into my every day speech. Which I never thought anything off, because everyone talked like that, and I had no experience with any of the people on the recieving end of it.

I have had very little experience with homosexuals. I have only ever met a couple in my life, (not mentioning the tons of girls that have told me they were bisexual, but that is just something girls say because they think it turns guy one, especially guys like me, so I don't count it) my cousin, whom I've only met a couple times, though he looks a hell of a lot like me, only fatter. It is strange too, because he is femine acting, and it's odd watching someone who looks so much like me act that way. He fits the stereotype quite well, last I heard about him he was becoming a hair-dresser, though I'm not sure if that was only a rumor or not. Though he did like dressing up his little sister, which creeped me out.

My older brother met a guy at the bar that he started hanging around with that was clearly gay and interested in him. I thought it was funny at first, but once he started to buy my older brother stuff I had to tell him, because I was worried that the guy would get hurt. My brother is extremely homophobic, and he's violent, so I thought he might hurt the guy, who seemed nice. My brother didn't believe me, but after getting him to promise me that he wouldn't do anything stupid, he confronted him, and the guy confessed his intentions. He told me that he didn't do anything stupid, I just hope that was the truth. It was after that occaution that I first considered how hard it must be to be gay. It must be hard guaging someone's opinion about homosexuality without setting off an premature alarms, or risking a punch in the face from the more homophobic people. I'm not sure that I've got the balls to be gay, it's hard enough when a girl turns you down, at least I don't have to worry about being attacked.

It was really the internet, and meeting a huge varity of different people that changed the way I thought about such things. I still don't pretend to understand such people's position. I thought it was eloguently laid out a few pages back, about how alone, and segragated homosexuals must feel compared to other minorities. Though I can't pretend to know what it feels like to be singled out, and in a minority.

This won't go on forever though, I do someday plan to move to Japan for awhile, where I will be a minority, and stand out. Which is sure to be a learning experience.

So, the reasons I feel that everyone should be respected, and treated equally is because the arguments in favor of this have won me over, not really because of personal experience. Though I think I am impoverished without the personal experiences.

381. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169490 by Mitchell Gilks on April 26, 2008 at 7:43 am

I saw him make no such point. The closest possible thing I saw him argue is that it was more prominent than other forms of bullying, and thus perhaps deserves more attention. Which he attempted to do by citing sources. Though I don't at all find it hard to believe, I can't think of anything I'd rather less to have been during school than gay.

Now whether the biggest problems deserve the most attention is a matter of how you think problems should be delt with. Pointing out that it was something related to him, and something he might have experienced is both a non-issue, and a low blowish attempt to discredit him without actually addressing what he had to say in my view.

Personally, I think you should justify your horrible assertion, or apologize. Of course you're free to be a dick.

382. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169483 by Mitchell Gilks on April 26, 2008 at 7:26 am

124. Comment #169468 by Steve Zara

I was somewhat taken aback by your comment that I might only be putting this case because I am gay. I can't see what was wrong with that.

So was I. Lol, it reminds me of what people were saying about Micheal J Fox after he was in those commericals supporting Parkinson's research. They were pointing out that he wants that because it would be beneficial to him, or effects him as if that is somehow a bad thing in anyway.

Steve! I accuse you of writing those comments on purpose! And...AND...with the intention of convincing people of your position!! How dare you!

383. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169480 by Mitchell Gilks on April 26, 2008 at 7:17 am

Well I don't feel the impack of such things. So it is rather hard to comment. People bring up racial things, but we only mention races that are in a minority, or discriminated against or something. If someone wore a t-shirt that said racist things against white people, I can't see that bothering me, so I can't even imagine what it feels like. Same with homosexuality.

When it comes to verbal abuse, I have always been the one on the delivering end really. I was bullyed in school quite bad, enough that I didn't want to go, but verbal abuse never bothered me, I could always wipe the floor with anyone in that area, it was the physical abuse that bothered me.

I will agree that in a place like a school, students deserve to be in a respectful, and healthy environment with no mental distractions that would get in the way of their learning. In this regard I do think that certain rules should apply in a school (that in no way need to be law, or anything) that prevent people from making other student's educational experience difficult. Rules that if not adhered to result in the expellsion of the perpetrator. "Expelled: No bigotted bullying ass-holes allowed."

Though, in the real world, they're on their own. I support all forms of freedom of speech, and freedom to offend. Up to inciting violence, directly, or implied.

384. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169411 by Mitchell Gilks on April 26, 2008 at 3:02 am

I am offended how the religious throw around the world truth as a vacuous term that denotes nothing. It's just a pretty word to them. Romanticized, and loved, but not representative of anything inparticular.

Sure, let the dick-head wear his stupid ass t-shirt. Should allow some rebuttal t-shirts though, and I am more than confident in the other side be far more clever.

How about "I may be gay, but that is a dick I don't like."

"Harray for the freedom to be intolerant!"

"This is your moral compass on religion."

"Thou shalt not be an ass-hole."

"You think Jesus' perm is natural?"

Lastly "Be what I like, not what I dislike."

Though my slogans may be terrible, but surely there are people that could think up some good ones.

385. Tyrannosaurus rex protein proves dinosaurs evolved into birds

Comment #169409 by Mitchell Gilks on April 26, 2008 at 2:43 am

I thought that heard somewhere that they thought that T rexs were most closely related to parrots or something. Hmmm. I don't remember where I heard that, so it probably isn't true.

I can't wait to find out which bird species it is closest related to.

386. Investigating Atheism

Comment #168294 by Mitchell Gilks on April 25, 2008 at 12:09 am

"The truth is never complicated, people are." I forget who said that.

All of atheism can be summed up in a single sentence: "Bullshit! I don't believe you, prove it."

387. Lynchings in Congo as penis theft panic hits capital

Comment #168292 by Mitchell Gilks on April 25, 2008 at 12:00 am

So that's what they blame having a case of "baby penis" on in the Congo. Go figure.

388. Interview with Dan Dennett

Comment #168290 by Mitchell Gilks on April 24, 2008 at 11:53 pm

Not a huge Dennett fan myself, but he isn't hard to listen to or anything.

389. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #168176 by Mitchell Gilks on April 24, 2008 at 5:03 pm

28. Comment #166213 by Steve Zara

I like to use the example of Kepler, who struggled for years to make his data fit models of the cosmos derived from the idea of God the Geometer, and in the end (being at heart an honest scientist) gave up and found that orbits were ellipses.

If I am not mistaken there was an episode of cosmos about that guy, and the events. I found it a powerful, and unforgettable example of how the intellectual honest and rigour of science can over come deeply held beliefs if you stick to it. He did what good scientist does, he came up with a hypothesis, and tested it, and when it was falsified, although he was crushed he let it go. Which is something I find incredibly inspiring, how the scientific method demands this.

If this guy wants to attack science as an institution of feigned certainties, then I don't know how he can call himself a scientist.

390. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #168142 by Mitchell Gilks on April 24, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Comment #167522 by Steve Zara

I am intrigued as to why people who aren't scientists feel they have any kind of ability to comment on scientific subjects

No, I agree with this whether or not you think you put your foot in your mouth.

When I say that I discuss science, I mean that I basically regurgitate what I've read to the best that my memory will allow. I do this with physics that I can't even begin to understand as well. I don't give my own thoughts on how I think reality operates, I think that would be crazy. Because I'm not a scientist, the only possible place I could be pulling unique to me ideas about reality are from my imagination. Which, I personally frown upon.

I often may argue, and give my opinion on the philosophical implications of scientific knowledge or theories, or use well established theories about the way reality operates in deductive arguments. But deduction isn't generating new information, it is taking things we already know, and rearranging it in new ways. Unless you are just inventing your premises from scratch, in which case your argument is worthless. Deductive arguments are only ever useful if their premises are uncontroversial.

I mean half the fields of science don't do what many of these people think they can. Formal science doesn't give theories on how reality operates that are not directly generated from the information gathered from natural science, and it is only true to the extent that natural science got it right.

So yes, I agree, if someone just invents ideas on how they think reality operates, and then developes arguments based on what they pulled out of their ass, then they are fools and charlatans.

Though anyone discussing what is known about reality is no different than discussion what you know about medicine, about language, about mathematic, and about logic. About art, music, writting or anything else. You don't need to be an expect to discuss what you know about ang given subject, though you will rightfully get some funny looks if you just start inventing information about the subjects on the spot.

391. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #168138 by Mitchell Gilks on April 24, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Comment #167961 by Kergillian

What creationist website would post something like this? Something critical of their position?

On this site Prof. Dawkins will post, unedited, critiques of his writing, regardless if they are ill informed and poorly written, or eloquent and well reasoned. That would be like Mark Mathis posting a rebuttal by P.Z. Meyers on the Expelled website. It would never happen.

This is one of the reasons I love this website.

I think this is almost completely true. Though I have yet to see a well reasoned or informed critique of anything he has written. Eloquent, yes. Well reasoned, no. Though I think it is almost certaintly because none exist.

392. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #167405 by Mitchell Gilks on April 24, 2008 at 2:17 am

No matter where I am posting something I always copy it (even if it's short) before submitting it. A number of things could happen. I don't require copying and pasting it to anything, just copying it is fine. I rarely lose posts, but when I do I have it copies, and ready to be pasted back. That has saved my ass several times.

Any number of things could happen that wouldn't be something an admin could have done anything about. The best thing to do is just to copy, just in case.

393. Judge orders La. school district to stop Bible giveaways

Comment #167351 by Mitchell Gilks on April 23, 2008 at 11:31 pm

I remember getting a little red bible in grade 4. I had forgotten all about that. This brings back memories. It was two old men that had them, they came right into the class and gave everyone one. I wasn't asked, it was plopped on my desk.

I wonder where that went.

394. Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary

Comment #167331 by Mitchell Gilks on April 23, 2008 at 10:53 pm

Think there are any genius chimps? With like an 80 IQ? That would be double the average chimp's IQ.

I see no reason to think there aren't. It would be interesting to find one.

395. Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary

Comment #167302 by Mitchell Gilks on April 23, 2008 at 9:34 pm

also think that having a higher IQ means you have pictures of Lesbians in your avatar. You rock!!!

Clearly that is the test I should have taken.

Well, not like I am trying to discredit what you said about hereditary intelligence with some anecdotal evidence, but my parent's aren't that bright.

My father is heavily dyslexic. Can't do simple math, can't spell simply words, and even has problems with pronounciation. His IQ is above average, he was tested by the government last year while they were evaluation the severity of his dyslexia and he told me he got 113. He uses reading and speech to test programs to get by. Yay technology. I think my mom is smarter than average as well, though she is extremely under-educated. She only went to grade six I think. She is kind of loopy because of this, also being a full-time mom for the last 28 years hasn't given her much time to think or learn. I have seven siblings, the youngest is 5, and there is one that is 7, and another one is 13. So she has some mothering to do. I finally convinced her that computers are not just for porn, so she is letting me get her one. Hopefully that will help. Despite her under-education she does accept evolution, despite being a theist though.

Math I've always gotten right away, I remember my shop teacher telling my parents I should be pushed into architecture after picking up how to write blueprints the on the first day.

My english skills have always been poor however. Didn't learn to read till I was 13, and I was mostly self taught. Yay for RPGs. I couldn't read a road sign, but by the end of final fantast 7 and 8 I could read novels. I did too, I read the 12 book series "Ever World".

As I commented before, it probably has a lot to do with how well certain connections in the brain are established. It is quite random with elements of natural selection in how the connections are established. Multiples more connections than what are required are established, and the ones that don't connect proporly are cut, while the ones that connected the best are kept. So none of the connections are even remotely perfect, there were just the best ones to select from.

Like I commented earily, likely the mathematics congition parts of my brain are descently established, while the language parts are a trainwreck.

I only trotted this out as an attempt to justify my assertion that I would be in the high end of the site average intelligence. I don't know what mine is exactly, or what anyone else's is on here, so I could be wrong.

I just figured that even if my IQ were in the lower end of all the tests I've taken, it would still be likely that I would be in the above average of the site. Not that I think that it really means anything at all. It was merely relevent to what had been said.

Even in discussion of IQ I don't bring my own into it. I am pretty sure that this is my first time ever mentioning it in the year of more that I've been a member. I also have an account of a philosophy forum where I have almost 1700 posts, and I am willing to bet that I have never mentioned it there. So don't think that I think that it is important, or in anyway relevent to anything except that specific subject.

396. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #167288 by Mitchell Gilks on April 23, 2008 at 8:55 pm

After reading through the comments, I almost completely agree with Steve, though I think he has gone misunderstood.

I am frequently discussing science, and almost exclusively evolution and physics. I am not a scientist, and there is a hell of a lot more on both subjects that I don't know than what I do. I discuss both perfectly fine without doing anything I think Steve would object to.

I also disagree that people that speculate as such, and are completely ignorance of science are not ridiculed. I know they are by me, as well as other people that are scientifically literate. Which is what I want to say. It doesn't take a lot to be scientifically literate. I don't object to people talking about science that aren't scientists, and I highly doubt that Steve would as well. I do dislike it when people that are scientifically illiterate do. Which I take as meaning, not only do they not understand or know anything about the specific theories they are giving an opinion on, but they don't even understand what a scientist is saying when they open their mouths. They don't know how science works, or what any scientific jargon means. It is like trying to have an english conversation with someone who speaks a different language. They aren't going to make any sense to you, and they aren't going to understand what you are saying. It is not illegal for them to attempt this, nor do I think anyone would try to stop them. It is however an exercise in futility.

The point Steve (as I understand him) is making is in no way elitist, (a word that I have no problem with at all by the way) it is one of intellectual honesty, and integrity. All I see him asking, is for people to not pretend to more knowledge then they possess. This is understood, and expected when it comes to every other field or venue of discourse, except scientific ones. I am perfectly capable of discussing science without ever pretending to more knowledge or understanding than I have in any given field.

I of course don't think it should be illegal for people to rant nonsensically about subjects that they don't know anything about. Though I also don't think that it is in anyway unreasonable, or elitist to expect a certain level of intellectual honest and integrity when discussing anything, including science.

That is all I see Steve pushing for.

397. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #167275 by Mitchell Gilks on April 23, 2008 at 8:03 pm

Atheism has its fundamentalists like Richard Dawkins. Everyone has faith in something that is beyond science to prove. Science itself is based on the assumption that the universe is rational and logical and not absurd. Dawkins has a similar problem to those who cannot explain where a complex God came from. Where did the Big Bang come from, and what existed before? If the anthropic principle (the laws of nature seem to have been crafted for the emergence and sustenance of life) was inherent in the Big Bang, then where did that complexity come from? If it was all random, that is a faith assumption also.

Ken Savage

Palm Desert

You're an idiot, read a book about it. Generally that is how you find answers to stuff like that.

Even Jesus didn't worry about proofs for God's existence.

James McDermott

Pasadena

Nope, charlatans never do.

This is, of course, the position that is reflected in Christian teaching. During my Catholic upbringing, I was taught that God "is," meaning he always was and always will be. Defining God in that manner is another way of saying that no matter how sophisticated our theories become, ultimately we cannot explain how the universe got started from nothing and why the world exists. This notion embodies the ultimate mystery of life, which is beyond our power to penetrate from a purely logical and philosophical point of view, and which we must accept on that basis and learn to live with.

Paul Rosenberger

Manhattan Beach

Too bad our definitions don't dictate reality, presumably reality dictates our definitions of it.

Dawkins argues that "intelligent design" is not science. He is correct. But after that, he moves into less certain territory in which his reasoning inevitably moves to the problem of first causes. There he pretty much avoids the details. In the end, he, like everyone else, must confront one of two choices: Either the universe has always existed, or it was created by someone who has always existed. If the latter is improbable, as he claims, then why is not the former also? Without saying so explicitly, he clearly favors the former, which he is free to do. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to know why he favors one and not the other. Could it be that the latter might make moral claims on all of us, something that would threaten our desire to be morally autonomous?

William S. LaSor

Apple Valley, Calif.

This is clearly a false dichotomy. You also need to read a book about it. Also, it appears that you need to read The God Delusion, which would answer your questions about RD's position. Instead of (like so many theists think is both reasonable and reliable method) speculation from a position of ignorance.

How could natural selection create the first living cell? There is no advantage to non-living material becoming a living cell, so the process had to be pure chance, a result of random atoms forming thousands of extremely complex molecules within a few micrometers of each other at the same time. It is statistically a highly improbable probable event, and it bears all the earmarks of design.

As a former evolutionist, I have seen the results of following the data to the most logical conclusion in today's scientific community. Evolutionists control the scientific community, and any questioning of the current paradigm is cause for ridicule, harassment and sometimes destruction of careers. They should be ashamed, for they have created a totalitarian science community in which everyone must parrot the party line and independent thought is not allowed.

Elaine Fleeman

Bakersfield

Someone just watched expelled. Does this nonsense even require a reply? I don't think so. Former evolutionist, life long idiot.





I think that covers this. It amazes me who gets published. The scientific ignorance, and use of fallacious reasoning is less prominent in the philosophy forum I frequent. I should perhaps show the theists of the site more respect, because as wrong and idiot that they are, people that are actually published are worse.

I don't use ad hominem there though, I keep it to myself. Though, I think it is ok here, we're all thinking it.

398. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #167268 by Mitchell Gilks on April 23, 2008 at 7:44 pm

Aarrg! I'll show myself out.

This is why it is beginning to become harder and harder to tell people that atheism isn't a religion. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a fucking duck.

Well, I'd say I'm getting back in the closet, but as things seem to be going, it would be accurate to say I'm not an atheist if anything other than the lack of theist is implied by it.

No Sam, no!! That is what the reason project is? But those people aren't funny...they are annoying (especially sweeny). Also, how can you even begin to call something that is supported by celebrities the "reason project"? Doesn't that just turn the word reason into a vacuous term that denotes nothing?

From the perspective of those theologians that have been debating the four horsemen, they are right. Atheism is turning into some weird form of pagonism.

Well, it is becoming harder and harder to refer to myself as a atheist. It may soon become impossible.

399. Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary

Comment #167170 by Mitchell Gilks on April 23, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Arogop, where did you get that information? From what I've read 95% of the population score between 70-130, 2.5% score below, while 2.5% score above. So clearly 3% can't have 180 IQs. Also, Mensa only lets in people in the top 2%, which they say is 135 or over.

It is true that what is considered a "genius" is opinion, and not a clear thing. Many numbers, as high as 180 have been proposed, but currently 136 is what is considered to be a genius. You can read this on the wiki page. I thought it was 160, then while watching "R.O.D. the T.V." they were running tests to incease people's IQs, and they got someone up to 140, and one of them remarked that it was genius level. I checked on wiki and they were right.

I definitely never implied that there is a static test, or way of determining it exactly. Nor did I mean to imply that I know what my IQ is beyond a guess from all the different tests I've taken.

I also have no idea what you mean by having an higher IQ doesn't make you smarter... how do you define smart? I define it by intelligence, in which has that is exactly what an IQ means. You are free to define it differently if you like. Perhaps you mean it contextually. Like an genius artist, or a genius musician or something like that.

D'Arcy, I don't think that anyone implied that high IQ = right.

400. Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary

Comment #166157 by Mitchell Gilks on April 22, 2008 at 10:21 pm

Well we are poor judges of ourselves for sure. Everyone thinks they are more intelligent and rational than they really are.

One day I said about my brother when he wasn't there "he thinks he is smarter than what he really is" and my drunk friend said "he's not the only one" and I felt like a tool. He was completely right, it isn't saying much to say that he thinks he smarter than he really is. That is almost certainly true of everyone.

I've had two IQ tests taken while I was in school, once in elementary school and the only high school. I scored 137 in elementary and 131 in high school. I've taken several online IQ tests, the best of which I got 142 on, and the worst I've gotten 121 on. During "test the nation" the IQ test they did on television, I got a poor 124. In school I was told that my IQ was close to being in the two 2% of the world. taking into account all the tests I've taken, they average at around 130.

I was happy with this for some time until about a year ago when I found out that genius IQ was only 136, I thought that it was 160. I don't remember where I got that idea, probably because Einstein or something. I was extremely disappointed. Because that means I am pretty close, and I have no special skills that would wow anyone. As I imagined geniuses did. When I found that out I just though "well then it's useless". If I'm a genius, then humanity is fucked. Now I know why Mensa never worked out. If they are like be, then they don't want to touch the worlds problems with a ten foot poll.

Then again I'm dylexic, which usually does result in a higher IQ, but reduced mental abilities in other areas. For instance my poor command of spelling. My almost inability to remember names, and the fact that I didn't learn to read until I was 13, but I was always good at math (and have an excellent memory for numbers. I like to brag how when I first set down to learn the Japanese numbers, I memorized them to 99 in about 20 minutes, and have zero trouble recalling them. Don't know why it works even when I am calling them something different. The area of my brain were the recollection of numbers are stored just must have some well established connections. While the area whether words and names are stored is a trainwreck). Maybe if your normal and have a high IQ it accounts for something. In any case, I haven't got a lot of braggable attributes, so I am going to never shut up about my one attribute that is exceptional!

My litttle brother scores slightly lower on IQ tests, in the teens above one hundred, to lower twenties, but he isn't dylexic, so perhaps he is arguably smarter. The rest of my huge family are dumb as bricks though. Sadly.

Well that's my life story, and you didn't even have to pay.