a challenge to evolution punks
Dale Kelly
even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
because they have emergent behavior
emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
called the subconscious
we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
a mysterious subconscious
more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
intermediary of God, not the subconscious
provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
snex
strawman.
John Harshman
Perhaps in the future you could limit your postings to
alt.drugs.psychedelics, since you seem to be tripping here.
None of your premises are true. The modern definition of life refers to
reproduction and metabolism, not to emergent behavior, which is good
considering the difficulty we have in defining "emergent". Plants are
alive because they reproduce and metabolize. The subconscious is a term
used in Freudian psychiatry, not in biology. If there is "proof" of god,
please trot it out. Your bizarre form of dualism is worse than the more
usual form.
Bill Morse
Who is he _talking_ to? And how does he make his voice _do_ that?
--
Yours, Bill Morse
John Harshman
By the way, what does this have to do with evolution?
Lee Oswald Ving
news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net:
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with
> an intermediary of God, not the subconscious
What did I just tell you about making shit up instead of admitting you have
no idea, bitch?
Lexington Victoria-Rice
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
>
I fail to see what the Sex Pistils have to do with it, unless you are
referring to their stamena.
--
"Fundamentalists can kiss my left behind."
Some bumper sticker or t-shirt.
Pete G.
news:deeXh.532$RX....@newssvr11.news.
> The subconscious is a term
> used in Freudian psychiatry
It most certainly bloody *is not*! The term 'subconscious' has nothing to do
with Freudian psychoanalysis, and is never used in properly psychoanalytic
writings. English-speaking Freudians have 'conscious', 'pre-conscious' and
'unconscious' -- and *that's it*.
[Handy reference: Charles Rycroft, Penguin Dictionary of Psychoanalysis]
P.
Nic
> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
Wasn't me who cursed the fig tree.
Klaus
> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
No it isn't.
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
No, because they have metabolisms and reproduce.
>
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
Really? What proof?
We know complex neural networks exist in the brain, and that neurons use
electrical and chemical signals to communicate with each other. We know
specific locations of the brain and involved in specific mental
abilities. We know nerves transmit impulses from the brain to trigger
voluntary muscle actions.
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
What part of the brain is God in?
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
I wish willfull stupidity hurt.
Klaus
>
Anlatt the Builder
Every single statement a falsehood! This belongs in a museum.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Dale Kelly
<dale....@comcast.net>:
>the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
>even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
>because they have emergent behavior
>
>emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
>called the subconscious
>
>we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
>supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
None of the above is correct.
>I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
>a mysterious subconscious
Fine. Post the proof.
>more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
>intermediary of God, not the subconscious
Fine. Post the evidence.
>provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
I could say "Post proof of God or shut up, fundie punk", but
that would make me seem as ignorant as you are. So I won't.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Ross Langerak
"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
Invisible robot fish.
raven1
<dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
>the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
Is it?
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Ron O
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kelly would be a poster child for the ads about "this is your brain on
drugs."
Ron Okimoto
Rolf
"snex" <xe...@comcast.net> skrev i melding
news:1177381901....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 23, 9:26 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
[snip]
> > provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
If the jerk had any valid arguments, he would not resort to such puerile
language, calling serious scientists 'punks'. It just reveals the vacuity of
his position and how shallow his mind is.
> >
> > --
> > Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
>
> strawman.
>
Jim Willemin
<snip mistaken premises)
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with
> an intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
Are you sure you want to go here? Since many sins, even unpardonable ones,
involve the will causing the body to act, this means that God is complicit
in any and all activity that damns you to hell - since if you are right,
clearly God could mess up the transmission of truly damning messages-to-
act, giving you a chance to reflect and possibly not do evil. It seems to
me that the theological implications of involving God directly with any and
all acts of volition are really not worth whatever mechanistic points you
might get from the exercise.
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
>
Y'know, Dale, you seem to have become really, really angry lately. Perhaps
you should take some time off from the newsgroups, go walking in a nice
spring garden, smell the scents, listen to the birds (robins and cardinals
and sparrows around here right now), feel the sunlight on your face, and
just get in touch with God again. Get some persepctive. Perhaps we were a
bit harsh in lambasting your engineering expertise, and I apologize for
that, but there really is a difference between engineering and science - if
you can accept that, then what we say about science becomes less a personal
attack, and therefore less threatening. Seriously, step back a bit, let
your blood pressure recede a bit, breathe a couple of times, and as for
those who insist on throwing cheap shots, remember the words of Tevye: "An
eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and pretty soon the whole world is
blind and toothless." - the truly strong do not respond in kind, but repay
evil with good.
CreateThis
I think the subject title says it all. This fool has blown up.
Somebody sweep up the pieces.
CT
collec...@googlemail.com
the biological advantages and artificial social disadvantages we have
as males.
That's the ultimate sacred cow.
Cheezits
[etc.]
> That's the ultimate sacred cow.
I wouldn't steak my reputation on that.
Sue
--
She hears mooing from another dimension, but there isn't
a cow in sight... - heard in a commercial
Dogma Discharge
"Cheezits" <Cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns991C61741E4AFch...@130.81.64.196...
> collec...@googlemail.com uddered:
> [etc.]
>> That's the ultimate sacred cow.
>
> I wouldn't steak my reputation on that.
Even if it was well done?
Lethe
> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
Dude!
And like, my computer has emergent behavior, 'cause flipping bits in a
well-defined and rather uninteresting manner causes the emergent
behavior of shooting those wacky space creatures!
And like, mathematics has emergent behavior 'cause z<-z^2+c and
similar formulas show chaotic behavior!
Dude, like even *color* is considered and emergent property! This is
SO COOL! Like, computers and chaos and color are all ALIVE, dude!
Or are you just making this up?
Oh.
Nevermind.
Joel
>collec...@googlemail.com uddered:
>[etc.]
>> That's the ultimate sacred cow.
>
>I wouldn't steak my reputation on that.
>
>Sue
Rofl. I just love these faggots who are so intimidated by women that
they have to pretend to be superior to them, when that is genetically
impossible. Free hint, collection: the X chromosome. Look into it.
It's just like white "supremacists", who only prove how paranoid they
are of non-whites being anything remotely close to the same as they
are. Retarded.
--
Joel Crump
.... And the only thing I *do* recognize right now, is a political
fiasco here, that I am about to avoid by lettin' this buttfucking
Brady Bunch go!
Inez
Specificially the Museum of Craptastic Internet Theories.
Cheezits
Even if it was on a hoagie roll with cheese and onions.
Sue
--
"Everybody's stupid except me!" - Homer Simpson
Kermit
Dale: everything you say above is either demonstrably false.
To everyone else: many of you seem to think Dale is a run-of-the-mill
Creationist. He is not. He is a type of Hindu, and should be welcomed
as a change of pace. Variety is the spice of life, even if it's a
variety of nuts.
Kermit
Scooter the Mighty
> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
>
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
I suggest that there is more proof that you're a drug addled junkie
then there is that God exists.
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
I really care deeply about what you suggest, I assure you.
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
No.
Dale Kelly
> Are you sure you want to go here? Since many sins, even unpardonable
> ones, involve the will causing the body to act, this means that God is
> complicit in any and all activity that damns you to hell - since if you
> are right, clearly God could mess up the transmission of truly damning
> messages-to- act, giving you a chance to reflect and possibly not do
> evil. It seems to me that the theological implications of involving God
> directly with any and all acts of volition are really not worth whatever
> mechanistic points you might get from the exercise.--
I do not believe in a devil, I believe God orchestrates all experience,
good and bad, for his purposes
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
John Harshman
OK. So where does "subconscious" come from? Who uses it?
Dale Kelly
> No.
Yes
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Kermit
> "Dale Kelly" <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Visible robot fish!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1007_051007_robot_fish.html
Kermit
Mark VandeWettering
On 2007-04-24, Cheezits <Cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> collec...@googlemail.com uddered:
> [etc.]
>> That's the ultimate sacred cow.
>
> I wouldn't steak my reputation on that.
I wouldn't want to meat the person who had a beef with women's equality.
Mark
>
> Sue
Immortalist
> On Apr 23, 9:26 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> > even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> > because they have emergent behavior
>
> > emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> > called the subconscious
>
> > we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> > supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> > I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> > a mysterious subconscious
>
> > more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> > intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> > provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
> > Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
>
> strawman.-
I think that he is shifting the burden of proof onto us here. He
proposes something and he expects us to unfairly prove it wrong. But
his daddy should have taught him that "the one who proposes must
defend."
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bt0KLj3XgTo
http://youtube.com/watch?v=b__aC5NLcoI
Scully: Your sister was abducted by aliens? Mulder, that's
ridiculous!
Mulder: Well, until you can prove it didn't happen, you'll just have
to accept it as true.
The truth may be out there, but who has the job of producing it in an
argument? In the section on "Validity, Truth, and Soundess," we
discuss the concept of a burden of proof, which is defined there as
"how much each side of a dispute needs to prove in order to win
someone's agreement." Sometimes, however, whoever is carrying the
heavier burden attempts to shift that onus onto the other side--as
Mulder does above. In claiming that his sister was abducted by aliens,
he carries a much greater burden of proof, because we normally
consider alien-abduction stories as incredible; as a result, it is up
to Mulder to produce proof of his claim. But in the dialogue above, he
shifts that burden to Scully, creating the fallacious impression that,
if Scully can't prove it false, Mulder's alien-abduction story must be
true. On the contrary, since Mulder is making an incredible claim, it
is up to him to support it.
In easily verifiable claims, the person initiating the claim normally
assumes the burden of proof. Not doing so, however, should probably
not be considered a fallacy. The fallacy occurs whenever someone
shifts the burden of proof to avoid the difficulty of substantiating a
claim which would be very difficult to support.
http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/burden.html
In the common law, burden of proof is the obligation to prove
allegations which are presented in a legal action. More colloquially,
burden of proof refers to an obligation in a particular context to
defend a position against a prima facie other position...
...The standard of proof is the level of proof required in a legal
action to convince the court that a given proposition is true. The
degree of proof required depends on the circumstances of the
proposition. Typically, most countries have two levels of proof: the
balance of probabilities (BOP), called the preponderance of evidence
in the US, and beyond a reasonable doubt (BARD). In addition to these,
the US introduced a third standard called clear and convincing
evidence...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
(1) Why can't the religious believer simply put the burden on the
skeptic, and ask him to justify his unbelief, with the underlying
assumption that as between theism and atheism, it is the former that
is obviously true and the latter that is obviously false?
(2) This not being possible in any way that is of immediate interest
to religious belief, how does the believer regard his inability to
prove the truth of faith in the manner the skeptic demands?
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html
The concept of a "burden of proof" is important in debates - whoever
has a burden of proof is obligated to "prove" their claims in some
fashion. If someone doesn't have a burden of proof, then their job is
much easier: all that is required is to either accept the claims or
point out where they are inadequately supported.
It is thus no surprise that many debates, including those between
atheists and theists, involve secondary discussions over who has the
burden of proof and why. When people are unable to reach some sort of
agreement on that issue, it can be very difficult for the rest of the
debate to accomplish much. Therefore, it is often a good idea to try
to define in advance who has the burden of proof.
The first thing to keep in mind is that the phrase "burden of proof"
is a bit more extreme than what is often needed in reality. Using that
phrase makes it sound like a person has to definitely prove, beyond a
doubt, that something is true; that, however, is only rarely the case.
A more accurate label would be a "burden of support" - the key is that
a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical
evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof.
Which of those must be presented will depend very much upon the nature
of the claim in question. Some claims are easier and simpler to
support than others - but regardless, a claim without any support is
not one which merits rational belief. Thus, anyone making a claim
which they consider rational and which they expect others to accept
must provide some support.
An even more basic principle to remember here is that some burden of
proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the
person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it.
In practice, then, this means that the initial burden of proof lies
with the theist, not with the atheist. Both the atheist and the theist
probably agree on a great many things, but it is the theist who
asserts the further belief in the existence of a god.
This extra claim is what must be supported, and the requirement of
rational, logical support for a claim is very important. The
methodology of skepticism, critical thinking, and logical arguments is
what allows us to separate sense from nonsense; when a person abandons
that methodology, they abandon any pretense of trying to make sense or
engage in a sensible discussion.
The principle that the claimant has the initial burden of proof is
often violated, however, and it isn't unusual to find someone saying,
"Well, if you don't believe me then prove me wrong," as if the lack of
such proof automatically confers credibility on the original
assertion. Yet that simply isn't true - indeed, it's a fallacy
commonly known as "Shifting the Burden of Proof." If a person claims
something, they are obligated to support it and no one is obligated to
prove them wrong.
If a claimant cannot provide that support, then the default position
of disbelief is justified. We can see this principle expressed in the
United States justice system where accused criminals are innocent
until proven guilty (innocence is the default position) and the
prosecutor has the burden of proving the criminal claims.
Technically, the defense in a criminal case doesn't have to do
anything - and occasionally, when the prosecution does an especially
bad job, you will find defense lawyers who rest their case without
calling any witnesses because they find it unnecessary. Support for
the prosecution claims here is so obviously weak that a counter-
argument simply isn't deemed important.
In reality, however, that rarely happens. Most of the time, those
required to support their claims do offer something - and then what?
At that point the burden of proof shifts to the defense. Those who do
not accept the support offered must at the very least show just cause
why that support is insufficient to warrant rational belief. This may
involve nothing more than poking holes in what has been said
(something defense attorneys often do), but it is often wise to
construct a sound counter-argument which explains evidence better than
the initial claim does (this is where the defense attorney mounts and
actual case).
Regardless of exactly how the response is structured, what is
important to remember here is that some response is expected. The
"burden of proof" is not something static which one party must always
carry; rather, it is something which legitimately shifts during the
course of a debate as arguments and counter-arguments are made. You
are, of course, under no obligation to accept any particular claim as
true, but if you insist that a claim isn't reasonable or credible, you
should be willing to explain how and why.
http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/burdenofproof.htm
Will in New Haven
> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
>
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
Provide proof that you are a sapient life form or shut up, goddidit
punk.
Will in New Haven
--
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Mark Isaak
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:27:59 -0700, Scooter the Mighty wrote:
>
>> No.
>
> Yes
You don't want to know.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Desertphile
<Grey...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 7:26 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
> >
> > even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> > because they have emergent behavior
> >
> > emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> > called the subconscious
> >
> > we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> > supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
> >
> > I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> > a mysterious subconscious
> I suggest that there is more proof that you're a drug addled junkie
> then there is that God [sic] exists.
From: Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net>
Subject: too low of doses
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.psychedelics
Message-ID: <_sSdnV3yQ6yBGQXY...@comcast.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 21:46:36 -0600
if people think cough syrup and weak cacti are the same thing as
LSD, they have never really done LSD or they have done too small
of a dose, you really need to do around $50 worth of acid to trip
as opposed to $5, that would be around 5-10 blotters or microdots
(500mcg or better)
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
Pip R. Lagenta
From <http://www.answers.com/subconscious&r=67>:
"The subconscious was most clearly delineated in the work of Pierre
Janet. In Automatisme psychologique (1889), he posited two contrasting
forms of mental activity, automatism and synthesis. The former
corresponded to the primal and archaic; the latter, to creativity and
higher levels of consciousness. On the basis of experimental work with
hysterics, Janet demonstrated that in morbid states, due to a
diminished field of consciousness, automatism took precedence over the
activity of synthesis.
Janet essentially identified the subconscious with psychic automatism
and, in hysteria, he hypothesized profound dissociation and splitting
of the personality. He was influenced by the work of Frederick Myers,
the British psychical researcher, and the work of American physician
Morton Prince on dual and multiple personalities; he also took into
account earlier investigations by Jean-Jacques Moreau de Tours on
hashish intoxication."
Mmmmmm... hashish...
>
--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
Kelsey Bjarnason
Project managers; it's the only explanation for the lack of conscious
thought that goes into most projects. :)
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <pan.2007.04...@is.invalid>):
> Op Tue, 24 Apr 2007 06:25:16 -0700, schreef collection60:
>
>> If you really want to be a rebel... challenge feminism and declare all
>> the biological advantages and artificial social disadvantages we have as
>> males.
So she turned you down again, eh? There's a product known as 'mouth wash'.
Trying using some.
>
> *All* societies in the world nowadays are male-dominated. So tell me how,
> exactly, us males are disadvantaged socially? In the private sector, do
> females get better paying jobs than us? In politics, are they in the
> majority in positions of power and authority?
>
> About those biological so-called "advantages": the typical male may be
> able to run faster and lift heavier weights than the typical female, but
> do we have thighs as soft and hips as curvaceous? ;)
Some boys don't _like_ soft thighs or curvy hips.
Not that there's anything _wrong_ with that, of course.
>
> Whether any one trait should be considered an advantage depends on point
> of view, right?
>
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <deeXh.532$RX....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>):
> Perhaps in the future you could limit your postings to
> alt.drugs.psychedelics, since you seem to be tripping here.
If I may paraphrase the words of that great philosopher, Will Smith: "He's
not tripping, he's fallen and he can't get up."
Or, in the words of that _other_ great philosopher, Bugs Bunny: "Wot a
maroon."
chazwin
On Apr 24, 3:26 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
>
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
Proove it!
>
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
That Guy
"snex" <xe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1177381901....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 23, 9:26 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
>> a mysterious subconscious
Your suggestion that proof exists is not proof.
For example, if I suggest that there is more proof that infinity equals zero
than there is to support your theory, would you start believing that
infinity equals zero?
No one gives a rat's ass about what you "suggest" there is proof for. Show
us the proof, or kindly shut up.
Ye Old One
<dale....@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
Is it?
>
>even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
>because they have emergent behavior
No, plants are considered alive because they are alive.
>
>emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
>called the subconscious
Does it?
>
>we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
>supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
Half right, but then you only have half a brain.
>
>I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
>a mysterious subconscious
Please provide evidence that any god exists/has existed.
>
>more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
>intermediary of God, not the subconscious
Evidence?
>
>provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
Tonight, when you are asleep, your subconscious does the world a
disfavor - it keeps you alive.
--
Bob.
Gerry Murphy
"Nic" <harris...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177386515.8...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 24 Apr, 03:26, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
> >
> > because they have emergent behavior
>
And the Lord said unto the tree, "Wilt thou?", and it wilted. 8-}
Gerry Murphy
"Bill Morse" <wdNOSP...@verizonOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:6ceXh.2618$Rd.0@trndny08...
> Dale Kelly wrote:
>
> > the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
> >
> > even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> > because they have emergent behavior
> >
intermediary
> > called the subconscious
> >
> > supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
> >
> > a mysterious subconscious
> >
> > intermediary of God, not the subconscious
> >
>
Wait a minute! Didn't I say that on the other side? Where am I? 8-}
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Dale Kelly
<dale....@comcast.net>:
<snip>
>I do not believe in a devil, I believe God orchestrates all experience,
>good and bad, for his purposes
So if I do something society considers "bad" it was actually
God doing it?
Goody; I'm going to make a to-do list!
Thanks!!!
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
The Merry Prankster Pope - Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet
> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
>
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Dale - did you know that God is a hippie? God is LOVE and goodness.
Anything else is not God.
IMHO God evolved just like every other living thing did.
WOMP WOMP
Tom
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
>
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
Hey Dale, you are, uh, blithering again . . . .
Here, let me wipe that off your chin for you . . . . .
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Author:
"Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"
http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
Ross Langerak
"Kermit" <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177426604.7...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Cool!
Tachyglossus
news:Xns991C61741E4AFch...@130.81.64.196...
> collec...@googlemail.com uddered:
> [etc.]
>> That's the ultimate sacred cow.
>
> I wouldn't steak my reputation on that.
>
Here's a man who tried. Look what happened to him:
http://www.ukmm.org.uk/issues/suppression/nl.htm
T.
loua...@yahoo.com
> Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote
> What did I just tell you about making shit up instead of admitting you have
> no idea, bitch?
I beg your pardon? _I_ am a bitch. Kelly is nowhere near that rank.
Lee Oswald Ving
news:1177510370.8...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
Begging _your_ pardon, but I believe yours is a proper title, hence should
be "Bitch," or even more Properly "Madame Bitch."
It's unfortunate that the spelling is otherwise similar to the epithet
deserved by that deluded loudmouth, but I am merely the user of the
language, not it's creator.
Joshua Aaron
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
>
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
No response to any of the poster's on talk.origins by the post's
creator. Hmmm. Provide proof of Dale Kelly or shut up.
Tiny Bulcher
> Dale Kelly wrote:
>
>>
>> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>>
>>
> referring to their stamena.
Punk? Eek!
Sean Carroll
> Perhaps in the future you could limit your postings to
> alt.drugs.psychedelics, since you seem to be tripping here.
DALE KELLY IS NOT A TYPICAL PSYCHEDELIC USER, GODDAMMIT.
His rants have NOTHING to do with drugs, and everything to do with being
born without a functioning cerebral cortex.
You know who else used psychedelic drugs? Richard Feynman, for one. Sir
Humphry Osmond. Francis Crick was on LSD the night the image of the
double helix first occurred to him.
Stop taking the fucking cheap shots at drug users! Can't you flame this
idiot without haughtily insulting millions of other psychedelic users
you know nothing about?
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'What else turns you on? Drugs? Casual sex? Rough sex? ... Casual rough
sex? I'm a doctor, I need to know.' --Dr Gregory House
Sean Carroll
> Rofl. I just love these faggots who are so intimidated by women that
> they have to pretend to be superior to them, when that is genetically
> impossible. Free hint, collection: the X chromosome. Look into it.
I've read that the Y chromosome has actually been getting smaller and
smaller throughout the history of the human species, and is eventually
going to disappear entirely.
Sean Carroll
> If you really want to be a rebel... challenge feminism and declare all
> the biological advantages and artificial social disadvantages we have
> as males.
> That's the ultimate sacred cow.
Yeah, if by 'sacred' you mean 'idiotic', and by 'cow' you mean 'thing
that releases major quantities of malodourous methane gas'.
Sean Carroll
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=bt0KLj3XgTo
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=b__aC5NLcoI
>
> Scully: Your sister was abducted by aliens? Mulder, that's
> ridiculous!
>
> Mulder: Well, until you can prove it didn't happen, you'll just have
> to accept it as true.
This discussion of burden of proof is fine, logically, but whoever wrote
it obviously never watched The X-Files all that closely.
Scully and Mulder never said any such things. In the pilot episode,
Mulder first tells Scully about his sister. He does not speak of 'proof'
or of her 'acceptance' at all -- he basically says that *he* knows it is
true because he was *there* when it happened, and whatever Scully
believes is her problem. And Scully never called it 'ridiculous' -- she
merely refused to accept that there wasn't another explanation until
there was a compelling scientific reason to believe otherwise.
Scully always respected Mulder's beliefs. She disagreed with them most
of the time, but she never dismissed them as 'ridiculous' -- she merely
explained to him why scientifically they were unlikely to be accurate
and consisted of jumping to conclusions before they were justified, and
proffered her more likely, reasonable explanations based on the evidence
at hand. This was the fascinating give-and-take of their relationship.
Mulder (usually, though with exceptions from time to time) didn't say
'This is the truth, I don't care what science says, and you're an idiot
for not accepting it.' He said, 'I realise that scientifically this
sounds ridiculous, but what if it really is true? Shouldn't we keep our
possibilities open, and gather the evidence with multiple
interpretations in mind, instead of restricting our worldview to only
those phenomena that are already understood? Shouldn't we accept that
science, as wonderful a tool as it is, doesn't have *everything* figured
out yet, and there are things in the Cosmos scientists just don't yet
understand? It's one thing to dismiss "extreme possibilities" when the
evidence clearly points to something much simpler and less exotic, but
when you're investigating bizarre cases where the evidence is unclear
and all the "reasonable" explanations have already been tried and failed
to explain what's going on, it's not only foolish but contrary to the
spirit of science itself to continue to dismiss other ways of explaining
things based not on evidence but on a preconceived worldview.'
And Scully would then say, 'Okay, we'll imagine for a moment that your
theories are correct. What would that mean? How would it change the
evidence? How could we scientifically prove that the explanation is what
you think, and not these other less speculative ideas grounded in the
traditional scientific view of the world, which, after all, has had
tremendous success throughout history in explaining a massive amount of
previously mysterious phenomena? Don't just leap from the fact that the
first traditional explanation we try doesn't work to the assumption that
something paranormal is going on. Your hypotheses have to EARN the right
to be seriously considered. Make sure they fit the evidence we DO have.
Make testable predictions from them as to what other evidence we might
find when we investigate further. Follow out the implications and make
suggestions for concrete scientific ways we can support your ideas.
Explain why my alternative, more earthbound theories don't explain the
evidence as well as yours. It's one thing to believe there are phenomena
out there that science hasn't yet explained or even admitted the
existence of. It's quite another to therefore throw out the whole
scientific method when investigating a real occurrence, and assume the
most paranormal explanation is true without first ruling out everything
else. If these things really DO exist, the only way we're ever going to
discover and understand them is through science.'
And they both had damn good points.
coaster
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:27:59 -0700, Scooter the Mighty wrote:
> > No.
>
> Yes
Dale, you're improving! This is your most convincing argument to
date. You didn't have to invent any fake definitions to make it so
it's considerably more honest than the way you started this thread.
You should consider sticking to these types of strict antipodal
arguments rather than attempting to contradict well-known long-held
scientific definitions with poorly formulated conditional arguments
based on bogus information.
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>
>>Perhaps in the future you could limit your postings to
>>alt.drugs.psychedelics, since you seem to be tripping here.
>
>
> DALE KELLY IS NOT A TYPICAL PSYCHEDELIC USER, GODDAMMIT.
>
> His rants have NOTHING to do with drugs, and everything to do with being
> born without a functioning cerebral cortex.
>
> You know who else used psychedelic drugs? Richard Feynman, for one. Sir
> Humphry Osmond. Francis Crick was on LSD the night the image of the
> double helix first occurred to him.
>
> Stop taking the fucking cheap shots at drug users! Can't you flame this
> idiot without haughtily insulting millions of other psychedelic users
> you know nothing about?
>
Sorry if I've offended the powerful LSD lobby. I'll wait till you come
down to discuss this further. And speaking of things we know nothing
about, you know nothing about me. Who is Sir Humphry Osmond, by the way?
er...@swva.net
>
(snip)
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
_You_ provide proof of the subconscious, if you are so interested in
it. And what's an "evolution punk?"
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Eric Root
Sean Carroll
> Sean Carroll wrote:
>>You know who else used psychedelic drugs? Richard Feynman, for one. Sir
>>Humphry Osmond. Francis Crick was on LSD the night the image of the
>>double helix first occurred to him.
>>
>>Stop taking the fucking cheap shots at drug users! Can't you flame this
>>idiot without haughtily insulting millions of other psychedelic users
>>you know nothing about?
> Sorry if I've offended the powerful LSD lobby.
If it were a powerful lobby, such ignorant attitudes as yours wouldn't
be so widespread.
> I'll wait till you come down to discuss this further.
Oh, snap! You really burned me there. *rolls eyes*
> And speaking of things we know nothing
> about, you know nothing about me.
Which is why I didn't say anything about you.
> Who is Sir Humphry Osmond, by the way?
Um, among many other things, director of the Bureau of Research in
Neurology and Psychiatry at the New Jersey Psychiatric Institute in
Princeton.
Many highly respected scientists and very intelligent thinkers have used
psychedelic drugs. These substances do little more than bring your own
inherent thought processes to the surface. If you're a raving lunatic
who believes in faeries, they can make you a bigger raving lunatic who
actually *sees* faeries. If you're a balanced, intelligent individual
with curiosity about the world and well-rooted rational thought
processes, on the other hand, they can induce powerful creative insight
and deeper understanding of the world. People like Dale Kelly are no
more representative of all psychedelic users than Dick Cheney is typical
of white men.
Cheap, low-brow, narrow-minded, mean-spirited mockery directed at a
population that probably includes, without your knowledge, many people
you know and respect, as it includes millions of other people from all
walks of life and with all different sorts of personalities and levels
of intelligence, does not prove you are better than them. Quite the
opposite.
Scooter the Mighty
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:27:59 -0700, Scooter the Mighty wrote:
> > No.
>
> Yes
>
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>Sean Carroll wrote:
>
>
>>>You know who else used psychedelic drugs? Richard Feynman, for one. Sir
>>>Humphry Osmond. Francis Crick was on LSD the night the image of the
>>>double helix first occurred to him.
>>>
>>>Stop taking the fucking cheap shots at drug users! Can't you flame this
>>>idiot without haughtily insulting millions of other psychedelic users
>>>you know nothing about?
>
>
>>Sorry if I've offended the powerful LSD lobby.
>
>
> If it were a powerful lobby, such ignorant attitudes as yours wouldn't
> be so widespread.
>
>
>>I'll wait till you come down to discuss this further.
>
>
> Oh, snap! You really burned me there. *rolls eyes*
>
>
>>And speaking of things we know nothing
>>about, you know nothing about me.
>
>
> Which is why I didn't say anything about you.
Yes you did. You assumed I was ignorant based on one little cheap shot.
Chill.
I think all the talk about the great spiritual/creative benefits of
psychedelic drugs is nonsense, but never mind. Don't make the assumption
I'm unfamiliar with them either.
ayer...@hotmail.com
> Op Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:37:48 -0500, schreef Dale Kelly:
>
> > I do not believe in a devil, I believe God orchestrates all experience,
> > good and bad, for his purposes
>
how can there be good without evil? it's like two different sides of a
coin.
ayer...@hotmail.com
Cemtech
says...
> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
Cite please.
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
See above
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
Cite please
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
Proof of God? So you have no faith?
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
Data please
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
Fuck you hippie!
>
>
--
Advice when in a crowd of creationists:
"If you act like a dumbshit, they'll treat you as an equal"
J.R."Bob" Dobbs
CreateThis
<sean...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>John Harshman wrote:
>
>> Perhaps in the future you could limit your postings to
>> alt.drugs.psychedelics, since you seem to be tripping here.
>
>DALE KELLY IS NOT A TYPICAL PSYCHEDELIC USER, GODDAMMIT.
Are the typical ones as excitable as you?
>His rants have NOTHING to do with drugs, and everything to do with being
>born without a functioning cerebral cortex.
Where'd you get your Usenet Psychology degree?
>You know who else used psychedelic drugs? Richard Feynman, for one. Sir
>Humphry Osmond. Francis Crick was on LSD the night the image of the
>double helix first occurred to him.
>
>Stop taking the fucking cheap shots at drug users! Can't you flame this
>idiot without haughtily insulting millions of other psychedelic users
>you know nothing about?
Apparently not if they're all like you.
CT
CreateThis
You never heard of a two-headed coin?
CT
Sean Carroll
> Sean Carroll <sean...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>DALE KELLY IS NOT A TYPICAL PSYCHEDELIC USER, GODDAMMIT.
> Are the typical ones as excitable as you?
No. I'm excitable by nature.
> Where'd you get your Usenet Psychology degree?
Um ... the name pretty much implies I got it from Usenet.
>>Stop taking the fucking cheap shots at drug users! Can't you flame this
>>idiot without haughtily insulting millions of other psychedelic users
>>you know nothing about?
> Apparently not if they're all like you.
Ooh! Burn! I will now go curl up in the corner and pee on myself,
sobbing hysterically over how poorly you think of me.
CreateThis
<sean...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>CreateThis wrote:
>> Sean Carroll <sean...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>DALE KELLY IS NOT A TYPICAL PSYCHEDELIC USER, GODDAMMIT.
>
>> Are the typical ones as excitable as you?
>
>No. I'm excitable by nature.
>
>> Where'd you get your Usenet Psychology degree?
>
>Um ... the name pretty much implies I got it from Usenet.
>
>>>Stop taking the fucking cheap shots at drug users! Can't you flame this
>>>idiot without haughtily insulting millions of other psychedelic users
>>>you know nothing about?
>
>> Apparently not if they're all like you.
>
>Ooh! Burn! I will now go curl up in the corner and pee on myself,
>sobbing hysterically over how poorly you think of me.
I get it. You're imitating the comic book store guy on The Simpsons,
aren't you?
<describes facial expression>
CT
collec...@googlemail.com
pick.
If a female commits a crime, she is let off, especially if the victim
is male. If a male commits the same crime, he is treated more harshly,
especially if the victim is female. From speeding to murder!
The government spends 5x more money on female health issues than male
health issues. Despite that males pay more taxes.
We have anti-male hatred in the media all the time.
Females as a whole are evil fake nasty bitches so that makes it almost
impossible for us to actually find a nice girl to date.
Females are also expert liars, who create false accusations all the
time. And they get believed, because those in power beleve females to
be innocent. Whether that's a policeman or anyone in authority, even
an employer.
And the advantages are... basically males aren't stupid and weak.
Females cannot survive without males. Females have atrophied.
It's not just strength males have more of... we have more AGILITY,
gracefulness, sharper vision, better healing, better pain tolerance,
better resistance to diseases and chemicals. Also, we aren't born
insane. Females spend all their money on shoes and hairdressers, and
go insane for the slightest of reasons.
collec...@googlemail.com
J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:48:18 -0400, nmp wrote
> (in article <pan.2007.04...@is.invalid>):
>
> > Op Tue, 24 Apr 2007 06:25:16 -0700, schreef collection60:
> >
> >> If you really want to be a rebel... challenge feminism and declare all
> >> the biological advantages and artificial social disadvantages we have as
> >> males.
>
Who, your mom?
> There's a product known as 'mouth wash'.
> Trying using some.
There is a proceedure known as facial surgery. Try using some, may be
you'll become bearable to look at.
> > *All* societies in the world nowadays are male-dominated. So tell me how,
> > exactly, us males are disadvantaged socially? In the private sector, do
> > females get better paying jobs than us? In politics, are they in the
> > majority in positions of power and authority?
> >
> > About those biological so-called "advantages": the typical male may be
> > able to run faster and lift heavier weights than the typical female, but
> > do we have thighs as soft and hips as curvaceous? ;)
>
> Some boys don't _like_ soft thighs or curvy hips.
That'll be you then.
collec...@googlemail.com
> collectio...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > If you really want to be a rebel... challenge feminism and declare all
> > the biological advantages and artificial social disadvantages we have
> > as males.
> > That's the ultimate sacred cow.
>
> Yeah, if by 'sacred' you mean 'idiotic', and by 'cow' you mean 'thing
> that releases major quantities of malodourous methane gas'.
Wow. So you finally admit you are a misogynist too?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1177585055.3...@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
Looks like I hit a nerve.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
collec...@googlemail.com
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 06:57:35 -0400, collectio...@googlemail.com wrote
> (in article <1177585055.338302.167...@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>
>
>
> > J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> >> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:48:18 -0400, nmp wrote
>
> >>> Op Tue, 24 Apr 2007 06:25:16 -0700, schreef collection60:
>
> >>>> If you really want to be a rebel... challenge feminism and declare all
> >>>> the biological advantages and artificial social disadvantages we have as
> >>>> males.
>
> >> So she turned you down again, eh?
>
> > Who, your mom?
>
> >> There's a product known as 'mouth wash'.
> >> Trying using some.
>
> > There is a proceedure known as facial surgery. Try using some, may be
> > you'll become bearable to look at.
>
> >>> *All* societies in the world nowadays are male-dominated. So tell me how,
> >>> exactly, us males are disadvantaged socially? In the private sector, do
> >>> females get better paying jobs than us? In politics, are they in the
> >>> majority in positions of power and authority?
>
> >>> About those biological so-called "advantages": the typical male may be
> >>> able to run faster and lift heavier weights than the typical female, but
> >>> do we have thighs as soft and hips as curvaceous? ;)
>
> >> Some boys don't _like_ soft thighs or curvy hips.
>
> > That'll be you then.
>
> Looks like I hit a nerve.
No. you lied that you hit a nerve.
In fact I hit a nerve when I told you the truth that females are lying
fake evil monsters who hate innocent good males.
Ken Denny
> Op Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:37:48 -0500, schreef Dale Kelly:
>
> > I do not believe in a devil, I believe God orchestrates all experience,
> > good and bad, for his purposes
>
> But why?
Because he can?
David Iain Greig
> Well, we are socially disadvanted in every way possible. Take your
> pick.
I'll pick:
- victims of domestic violence
- equal pay for equal work
- the Glass Ceiling
How many men are murdered by their wives or girlfriends?
--D.
ZerkonX
> the modern definition of life..
I don't see God and evolution as mutually exclusive (Punk God?). Evolution
and Bible maybe.. is that more what you're saying?
.
Sean Carroll
No. I just read carelessly and mixed up my subjects. I meant to refer to
your statement *about* feminism. I have always been a staunch feminist,
and I can't understand how any intelligent person could possibly not be.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'Sometimes the best gift is the gift of never seeing you again.' --Dr
Gregory House
collec...@googlemail.com
> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> On 2007-04-24, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > collectio...@googlemail.com uddered:
> > [etc.]
> >> That's the ultimate sacred cow.
>
>
> I wouldn't want to meat the person who had a beef with women's equality.
Yeah, women should be equal.
They shouldn't get away with crimes, unlike today, where women get
away with anything from speeding to murder about 4x more lightly than
men do. (or often just getting off totally free).
They shouldn't be considered more valuable than us, and so get extra
funding from the government.
They should be made to register for the army, and throughout society
even as young girls, have it beaten into their heads that they must
protect and provide for males or else no male will ever want them and
they'll get rejected and abused for daring to criticise us males.
They shouldn't be able to steal a man's life's earnings and children
from him.
Support women's equality! Take away their extra privileges and give
then burdens that we carry!
Glad you are for equality for women Mark. That makes you an anti-
feminist :)
Martin Hutton
I thought that was the answer to "Why does a dog lick its balls?".
--
Martin Hutton
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1177601523.7...@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>):
Yep, she turned you down, alright.
Woland
With an attitude like that I'm not surprised that they would treat you
as such.
collec...@googlemail.com
> collectio...@googlemail.com <collectio...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Well, we are socially disadvanted in every way possible. Take your
> > pick.
>
> I'll pick:
> - victims of domestic violence
Yeah, women have shelters and VAWA laws, but there's no VAMA law is
there? Women have all this advertising blaming men, when in fact
unpolitically biased studies show that women do slightly MORE DV than
men. And they initiate 2/3rds of it.
> - equal pay for equal work
Good point. Men are underpaid. Women are overpaid. Or else how do
women spend most of the money? And how comes women do worse work and
are incompetant but through affirmative action get into jobs they
can't manage?
> - the Glass Ceiling
Like the ones that the homeless males and the males doing the worst
jobs such as garbage collector, suffer? Or the men doing the death
professions, such as logging, firefighting, dangerous constructions.
> How many men are murdered by their wives or girlfriends?
Many.
But women get off easier.
collec...@googlemail.com
All feminists are evil and must be destroyed.
AC
> You are a stupid bitch.
>
> All feminists are evil and must be destroyed.
Says the brave guy on Usenet.
Sheesh, but who lets these idiots even get close to electronic devices,
let alone use them?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by collec...@googlemail.com:
>You are a stupid bitch.
>
>All feminists are evil and must be destroyed.
Congratulations! If that attitude is evident in your
interpersonal relations you're the only person in history to
have volunteered for a Darwin Award.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
David Iain Greig
> On Apr 26, 5:03 pm, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>> collectio...@googlemail.com <collectio...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > Well, we are socially disadvanted in every way possible. Take your
>> > pick.
>>
>> I'll pick:
>> - victims of domestic violence
>
> Yeah, women have shelters and VAWA laws, but there's no VAMA law is
> there? Women have all this advertising blaming men, when in fact
> unpolitically biased studies show that women do slightly MORE DV than
> men. And they initiate 2/3rds of it.
Cite please for these 'unpolitically biased studies'.
>> - equal pay for equal work
>
> Good point. Men are underpaid. Women are overpaid. Or else how do
> women spend most of the money? And how comes women do worse work and
> are incompetant but through affirmative action get into jobs they
> can't manage?
Yes, women deserve to be paid less for the same job, in your
world. Those cunning sluts!
>> - the Glass Ceiling
>
> Like the ones that the homeless males and the males doing the worst
> jobs such as garbage collector, suffer? Or the men doing the death
> professions, such as logging, firefighting, dangerous constructions.
Avoiding the question again.
>> How many men are murdered by their wives or girlfriends?
>
> Many.
Cite please.
--D.
Will in New Haven
No, the question is really "Why does Collecto lick his balls" and the
anser is:
"Because this bitch WON'T."
Willl in New Haven
--
> --
> Martin Hutton
Will in New Haven
Not when they are with you.
Will in New Haven
--
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
Martin Hutton
Whut! Who is Collecto and why won't the bitch make him happy?
Enquiring minds want to know!
--
Martin Hutton
Quincy
> You know who else used psychedelic drugs? Richard Feynman, for one. Sir
> Humphry Osmond. Francis Crick was on LSD the night the image of the
> double helix first occurred to him.
Also Dr. Douglas C. Engelbart, inventor of the mouse, and
Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel-Prize winner for the polymerase chain reaction.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/01/70015
And a few notable businessmen:
* Bill Gates (interview in the December 1994 Playboy)
* Sir Richard Branson (in his Autobiography Losing My Virginity)
* Steve Jobs of Apple Computer describes taking LSD as
"one of the two or three most important things he has done in his life"
(in John Markoff's 2005 book, What the Dormouse Said;
also in an interview in Time Magazine)
* Henry Luce, Founder of Time/Life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_psychedelic_self-experimenters
Quincy
> Sorry if I've offended the powerful LSD lobby.
Based upon government statistics, there are more people in the U.S.
who have used hallucinogens or LSD in their lifetime
than there are gay or black people.
So it is amusing but not entirely farfetched to imagine a political bloc.
Then again, being black or gay is no longer a felony
in most states, so it is a bit easier for these groups to speak out
against political oppression and prejudice.
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k5NSDUH/tabs/Sect1peTabs1to66.htm#Tab1.12B
Harvard Professor Stephen Jay Gould, author of many books
on science and evolution, including his massive 1400-page opus
"The Structure of Evolutionary Theory," was a signatory to a
1998 advertisement in the New York Times, which took two full pages
to appeal for a new international drug policy.
"We believe the global war on drugs is now causing more harm
than drug abuse itself," the ad claimed.
Other signatories to the ad included Walter Cronkite, former US Surgeon
General Joycelyn Elders, former Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, former
Secretary of State George Shultz, Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco, Mayor
Kurt Schmoke of Baltimore, Mayor Susan Hammer of San Jose, Milton Friedman,
and a variety of judges, police, academics and other prominent citizens.
collec...@googlemail.com
> > You are a stupid bitch.
>
> > All feminists are evil and must be destroyed.
>
> Says the brave guy on Usenet.
>
> Sheesh, but who lets these idiots even get close to electronic devices,
> let alone use them?
Well you are dead. And I am a genius. And... you know I am right,
that's why you resort to adhominems when faced with reason.
loua...@yahoo.com
> Sean Carroll wrote:
> > You know who else used psychedelic drugs?
>
> * Steve Jobs of Apple Computer describes taking LSD as
> "one of the two or three most important things he has done in his life"
> (in John Markoff's 2005 book, What the Dormouse Said;
> also in an interview in Time Magazine)
So Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did basically the same thing, but Jobs
interpreted it as a spiritual event with (to outside observers) a
distinctly narcissistic, self-righteous twist?
Louann, just saying.