Friday, April 23, 2010

Friday Fundies

This quote I'm about to show you completely baffles me how ignorant and bigoted whoever wrote this is. I cannot comprehend their thought processes, and in a way I'm glad I can't.

Quote# 63609

Because a beast has four legs and one gender[, i]f you put two men together, they have four legs and two penises, still one gender, that’s a form of bestiality. If you put Eve and Eve together, two vaginas, that’s still one gender, that’s a form of bestiality.


Everybody should have human rights. But you have to be human. Human means you deal with the opposite sex... We as a city, D.C., we’ve got to realize that you’ve got to discriminate against something that’s inhuman.


  1. ಠ_ಠ

    Flawed logic is flawed.

  2. Hahaha, while the first two lines made me think "this person is retarded"...

    The last two lines, I craved :D

  3. Sorry, but the following question is not related to this thread at all (I didn't know where to put it). I am asking this question because I am not sure why this hypothesis is right or wrong, so it would be cool if you could shed some light on it (and I am sorry in advance if my question is stupid or the answer is blatantly obvious).

    I was talking to a friend the other day and he posed the following idea... I think it is a deconstructionist type viewpoint.

    'At a high level, we have our social interactions/sociology; this is controlled by our biology, which is constructed from our chemistry, which is ultimately governed by our physics. Physics is simply cause and effect. Therefore, do we have any free will at all, or are all our interactions/"choices" just determined by our physics (cause and effect) and the physics of our environment? Further, if we were to make some sort of super computer at the beginning of time which was able to deconstruct the "original environment" to it's basic physics (and analyse it), then theoretically we would be able to predict every single event and choice made by every human being, because humans (and everything else) are simply "playing out" what is already predetermined by the original physical environment'

    This view of course, is assuming no higher power/soul etc.

  4. @William - I can see where that person is coming from with what they are saying, but I personally think they are missing the point.

    Yes we are here as a result of random physical events that resulted in our planet forming in the habitable zone around our star. Eventually life formed once the planet was cool enough, then over the next 100's of millions of years life flourished, eventually resulting in Homo Sapiens Sapiens becoming arguably the dominant intelligent species on the planet. Then I was born and my life unfurled as it has for the past 26.8 years or so.

    So yes, Physics played a large part in my existence, but where physics stops being able to predict the future is when life is involved. Life is of course subject to the physics of its environment, but there is more involved of course, especially with intelligent lifeforms.

    We are able to perform any number of different activities every day, because of the fact that life while governed by physics, is able to do things that physics wouldn't have necessarily been able to predict.

    To be honest I'm not sure I'm defending the opposite point of view well enough, but the general idea I am aiming at is that up till the point that life is involved, physics is everything. You could accurately predict everything in a closed system if you understand the physics of it well enough. If we look at our solar system, and assume it is never affected by any outside force, we can predict with startling accuracy what would happen (assuming we know all the variables), but the moment you introduce life, you introduce a degree of uncertainty that gets larger as the life gets more complex.