| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
28 Mar 2007 05:19:53 PM |
| Object: |
A Law Student's Take on Intelligent Design |
http://tinyurl.com/24rjhv
"There was no way I was going to sit in class and let such drivel pass
without comment. How, I asked, are we to recognize intelligence in the
things of the world around us?"
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Aurelius Venport" |
|
| Title: Re: A Law Student's Take on Intelligent Design |
31 Mar 2007 11:53:40 AM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/24rjhv
"There was no way I was going to sit in class and let such drivel pass
without comment. How, I asked, are we to recognize intelligence in the
things of the world around us?"
Budikka
That is very easy.
the scientific method and simple Math.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SeppoP" |
|
| Title: Re: A Law Student's Take on Intelligent Design |
31 Mar 2007 12:09:04 PM |
|
|
Aurelius Venport wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/24rjhv
"There was no way I was going to sit in class and let such drivel pass
without comment. How, I asked, are we to recognize intelligence in the
things of the world around us?"
Budikka
That is very easy.
the scientific method and simple Math.
Wow! Please trot out your scientific methods and simple maths to identify intelligence.
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aurelius Venport" |
|
| Title: Intelligence defined was: A Law Student's Take on Intelligent Design |
31 Mar 2007 12:30:01 PM |
|
|
SeppoP wrote:
Aurelius Venport wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/24rjhv
"There was no way I was going to sit in class and let such drivel pass
without comment. How, I asked, are we to recognize intelligence in the
things of the world around us?"
Budikka
That is very easy.
the scientific method and simple Math.
Wow! Please trot out your scientific methods and simple maths to
identify intelligence.
first we must define Intelligence:
"Mainstream Science on Intelligence", which was signed by 52
intelligence researchers in 1994:
a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the
ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend
complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely
book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather,
it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our
surroundings—"catching on", "making sense" of things, or "figuring out"
what to do.
Do you agree with the above?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence defined was: A Law Student's Take on IntelligentDesign |
31 Mar 2007 12:50:08 PM |
|
|
Aurelius Venport wrote:
SeppoP wrote:
Aurelius Venport wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/24rjhv
"There was no way I was going to sit in class and let such drivel pass
without comment. How, I asked, are we to recognize intelligence in the
things of the world around us?"
Budikka
That is very easy.
the scientific method and simple Math.
Wow! Please trot out your scientific methods and simple maths to
identify intelligence.
first we must define Intelligence:
"Mainstream Science on Intelligence", which was signed by 52
intelligence researchers in 1994:
a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the
ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend
complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely
book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather,
it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our
surroundings—"catching on", "making sense" of things, or "figuring out"
what to do.
Do you agree with the above?
Most of the time intelligence is considered to have an
associated time element. Note that IQ tests are timed.
I don't consider timing important, having found that
valuable responses often aren't at one's fingertips.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SeppoP" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence defined was: A Law Student's Take on IntelligentDesign |
01 Apr 2007 02:16:07 AM |
|
|
Aurelius Venport wrote:
SeppoP wrote:
Aurelius Venport wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/24rjhv
"There was no way I was going to sit in class and let such drivel pass
without comment. How, I asked, are we to recognize intelligence in the
things of the world around us?"
Budikka
That is very easy.
the scientific method and simple Math.
Wow! Please trot out your scientific methods and simple maths to
identify intelligence.
first we must define Intelligence:
"Mainstream Science on Intelligence", which was signed by 52
intelligence researchers in 1994:
a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the
ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend
complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely
book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather,
it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our
surroundings—"catching on", "making sense" of things, or "figuring out"
what to do.
Do you agree with the above?
If the "definition" above is meant to describe something other than us humans or
some other intelligent biological organism, not really. If you mean that to imply to
some supernatural deity, you'd better trot out scientifically verifiable evidence of one.
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ips-Switch" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence defined was: A Law Student's Take on Intelligent Design |
01 Apr 2007 11:29:44 PM |
|
|
"SeppoP" <seppo_pietikainen@xyahoox.com> wrote in message
news:5794hnF2binolU1@mid.individual.net...
If the "definition" above is meant to describe something other than us
humans or
some other intelligent biological organism, not really. If you mean that
to imply to
some supernatural deity, you'd better trot out scientifically verifiable
evidence of one.
Jabbers always vanishes from a thread when asked to provide verifiable
evidence of his God-of-the-Watchtower.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence defined was: A Law Student's Take on Intelligent Design |
02 Apr 2007 11:34:04 AM |
|
|
Of course, Bernanke could raise fed funds to nine percent overnight,
which would take care of the Y2k-phobic liquidiy glut, China, Iran,
Russia, and all the limousine liberal McMansion owners on subprime
steroids. China is the prime cause of hiked energy prices: They don't
have a real market to regulate demand; they are also pushing up steel,
copper.
- = -
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Remorse begets zeal] [Windows is for Bimbos]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "foolsrushin." |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence defined was: A Law Student's Take on Intelligent Design |
01 Apr 2007 07:06:13 PM |
|
|
On 1 Apr, 08:16, SeppoP <seppo_pietikai...@xyahoox.com> wrote:
Aurelius Venport wrote:
SeppoP wrote:
Aurelius Venport wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/24rjhv
"There was no way I was going to sit in class and let such drivel pa=
ss
without comment. How, I asked, are we to recognize intelligence in t=
he
things of the world around us?"
Budikka
That is very easy.
the scientific method and simple Math.
Wow! Please trot out your scientific methods and simple maths to
identify intelligence.
first we must define Intelligence:
"Mainstream Science on Intelligence", which was signed by 52
intelligence researchers in 1994:
a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the
ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend
complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely
book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather,
it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our
surroundings-"catching on", "making sense" of things, or "figuring out"
what to do.
Do you agree with the above?
If the "definition" above is meant to describe something other than us hu=
mans or
some other intelligent biological organism, not really. If you mean that =
to imply to
some supernatural deity, you'd better trot out scientifically verifiable =
evidence of one.
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy?
(a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Easy-peasy stuff: but please describe the the next five major
scientifc breakthroughs in science.
'Human sacrifice is known to have been an aspect of Aztec theocratic
culture, although the extent of the practice is debated by scholars.
The Spaniards who first met the Aztecs explicitly stated in their
writings that human sacrifice was widely practiced in Mesoamerica. For
example, Bernal D=EDaz's The Conquest of New Spain recounts many first-
hand accounts of the remains of the victims. In addition, there are a
number of second-hand accounts of human sacrifices written by the
Spanish friars, told to them by the natives.'
London seems to be a bit safer,
--
'foolsrushin.'
Aztec high Priest:
Parking, and I am sorry I am late for the sacrificie!
Assistant Priest: None of the guys turned up anway, though one phoned
he was working late,
--
'foolsrushin.'
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence defined was: A Law Student's Take on Intelligent Design |
02 Apr 2007 11:31:31 AM |
|
|
This type of paranoia always comes out during inflation.
I hear Barney Frank trying to be Humphrey Hawkins and I give up hope.
Slumpflation is back.
- = -
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Remorse begets zeal] [Windows is for Bimbos]
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence defined was: A Law Student's Take on IntelligentDesign |
02 Apr 2007 01:31:11 PM |
|
|
wrote:
This type of paranoia always comes out during inflation.
I hear Barney Frank trying to be Humphrey Hawkins and I give up hope.
Slumpflation is back.
There's no reference point to any of your posts.
Don't look for many responses.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligence defined was: A Law Student's Take on Intelligent Design |
31 Mar 2007 03:56:13 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:30:01 GMT, in alt.atheism , Aurelius Venport
<Corrin@house_of.us> in <tUwPh.1451$WL4.431@trnddc04> wrote:
SeppoP wrote:
Aurelius Venport wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/24rjhv
"There was no way I was going to sit in class and let such drivel pass
without comment. How, I asked, are we to recognize intelligence in the
things of the world around us?"
Budikka
That is very easy.
the scientific method and simple Math.
Wow! Please trot out your scientific methods and simple maths to
identify intelligence.
first we must define Intelligence:
"Mainstream Science on Intelligence", which was signed by 52
intelligence researchers in 1994:
a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the
ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend
complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely
book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather,
it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our
surroundings—"catching on", "making sense" of things, or "figuring out"
what to do.
Do you agree with the above?
Not really, but it will do. I don't know of anything that has that
ability that does not have a physical body (in fact, a human body). Do
you? I don't know of any way to detect the results of actions affected
by such intelligence. Do you?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: A Law Student's Take on Intelligent Design |
31 Mar 2007 03:46:06 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:53:40 GMT, in alt.atheism , Aurelius Venport
<Corrin@house_of.us> in <omwPh.590$i93.103@trnddc05> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/24rjhv
"There was no way I was going to sit in class and let such drivel pass
without comment. How, I asked, are we to recognize intelligence in the
things of the world around us?"
Budikka
That is very easy.
the scientific method and simple Math.
Great. Give us a definition of "intelligence" and tell us how to
recognize it. If this is the scientific method then the mechanism
should be public and "universal" (that is, we should all be able to
apply the same facts to the same model and produce the same result).
BTW, do you know of any examples of "intelligence" that is not
embodied in a, well, body?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: A Law Student's Take on Intelligent Design |
28 Mar 2007 08:56:35 PM |
|
|
In article <1175120393.045234.321990@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
budikka1@netscape.net says...
http://tinyurl.com/24rjhv
It's got some good stuff. Here are one or two notes. When Aristotle
spoke of eudaimonia as being the end toward which things tended, he was
speaking conscious being who sought happiness as an end in itself. All
he was really saying is that we do some things as a means to obtain
happiness, but that happiness was the goal. Naturally, this is over-
simplification, but I don't think it has any bearing on any non-
conscious, natural objects.
Also, with respect to the quote by Budziszewski, it really ought to be
embarrassing to ID creationism that they have to make such obviously
vacuous theological arguments, when they are pretending to engage in
science. The quote I take exception with is here:
"What is, just is. If you accept the principle of sufficient reason, this
is rather unsatisfactory, for no one seriously maintains that the
universe had to be just the way it is."
In actual fact, people aren't saying that the universe couldn't have
conceivably been different than it is now. However, it had to be
somehow. It's like hands of cards in a poker game. There are many other
possible card combinations I could recieve. Does this mean that the
"intelligent dealer" actually intended me to get the cards I obtained, or
that they couldn't have been different? I suppose I might get suspicious
if I kept getting the same cards, but then again, there may be other
processes that naturally select which cards get put in and taken out of
the deck. It might turn out that the whole deck has been stacked with
royal flushes by the adaptive power of evolution.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "L.Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: A Law Student's Take on Intelligent Design |
28 Mar 2007 09:53:59 PM |
|
|
On Mar 28, 5:19 pm, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/24rjhv
"There was no way I was going to sit in class and let such drivel pass
without comment. How, I asked, are we to recognize intelligence in the
things of the world around us?"
Budikka
This makes twice today in a.a. that I've read religi-idiotic *****
where some religi-idiotic *****-fucked idiot announces that they believe
that atheists are 'not humans'. What the ***** is up with that? Didn't
Hitler start by running his yap like that about Jews?
L.Roberts
a.a. #2258
Atheist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: A Law Student's Take on Intelligent Design |
28 Mar 2007 10:27:20 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:53:59 -0700, L.Roberts wrote:
On Mar 28, 5:19 pm, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/24rjhv
"There was no way I was going to sit in class and let such drivel pass
without comment. How, I asked, are we to recognize intelligence in the
things of the world around us?"
Budikka
This makes twice today in a.a. that I've read religi-idiotic ***** where
some religi-idiotic *****-fucked idiot announces that they believe that
atheists are 'not humans'. What the ***** is up with that? Didn't Hitler
start by running his yap like that about Jews?
Yes.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: A Law Student's Take on Intelligent Design |
29 Mar 2007 12:26:18 AM |
|
|
On Mar 28, 6:19 pm, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/24rjhv
"There was no way I was going to sit in class and let such drivel pass
without comment. How, I asked, are we to recognize intelligence in the
things of the world around us?"
Budikka
Was that the same Aristotle who believed that men had more teeth than
women and never bothered to count them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: A Law Student's Take on Intelligent Design |
31 Mar 2007 10:49:17 AM |
|
|
On 28 Mar 2007 22:26:18 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Conspiracy of Doves"
<mark_dp73@yahoo.com> in
<1175145978.337105.291730@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Mar 28, 6:19 pm, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/24rjhv
"There was no way I was going to sit in class and let such drivel pass
without comment. How, I asked, are we to recognize intelligence in the
things of the world around us?"
Budikka
Was that the same Aristotle who believed that men had more teeth than
women and never bothered to count them?
How much of the "facts" you present have you personally checked out?
Aristotle did astounding comprehensive work in a wide variety of
fields. That he got some things wrong is not a particularly powerful
criticism. Before you attack Aristotle for not checking the facts you
might, well, check the facts and read his works. He did not reject
experimentation and observation, he did see those as the basis for
understanding the world.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: A Law Student's Take on Intelligent Design |
02 Apr 2007 12:06:30 PM |
|
|
On Mar 31, 11:49 am, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 28 Mar 2007 22:26:18 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Conspiracy of Doves"
<mark_d...@yahoo.com> in
<1175145978.337105.291...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Mar 28, 6:19 pm, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/24rjhv
"There was no way I was going to sit in class and let such drivel pass
without comment. How, I asked, are we to recognize intelligence in the
things of the world around us?"
Budikka
Was that the same Aristotle who believed that men had more teeth than
women and never bothered to count them?
How much of the "facts" you present have you personally checked out?
Aristotle did astounding comprehensive work in a wide variety of
fields. That he got some things wrong is not a particularly powerful
criticism. Before you attack Aristotle for not checking the facts you
might, well, check the facts and read his works. He did not reject
experimentation and observation, he did see those as the basis for
understanding the world.
--
Matt Silberstein
At what point did I say that Aristotle's entire body of work was
useless?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Law Student's Take on Intelligent Design |
02 Apr 2007 12:38:14 PM |
|
|
On Mar 31, 11:49 am, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 28 Mar 2007 22:26:18 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Conspiracy of Doves"
<mark_d...@yahoo.com> in
<1175145978.337105.291...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Mar 28, 6:19 pm, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/24rjhv
"There was no way I was going to sit in class and let such drivel pass
without comment. How, I asked, are we to recognize intelligence in the
things of the world around us?"
Budikka
Was that the same Aristotle who believed that men had more teeth than
women and never bothered to count them?
How much of the "facts" you present have you personally checked out?
Aristotle did astounding comprehensive work in a wide variety of
fields. That he got some things wrong is not a particularly powerful
criticism. Before you attack Aristotle for not checking the facts you
might, well, check the facts and read his works. He did not reject
experimentation and observation, he did see those as the basis for
understanding the world.
It wasn't so much that he rejected experimentation and
observation as he didn't have the tools to do more than
desultory work of that nature. Aristotle was from an
age where the accurate thermometer, clock and scale
were unavailable, so was almost completely unable to
do experiments as we understand them. To compensate,
he and his peers focused on analysis of the world by
pure reason, frequently leading to what was (to our
eyes) bizarre conclusions.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: A Law Student's Take on Intelligent Design |
02 Apr 2007 01:05:11 PM |
|
|
On Apr 2, 1:38 pm, wrote:
On Mar 31, 11:49 am, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 28 Mar 2007 22:26:18 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Conspiracy of Doves"
<mark_d...@yahoo.com> in
<1175145978.337105.291...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Mar 28, 6:19 pm, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/24rjhv
"There was no way I was going to sit in class and let such drivel pass
without comment. How, I asked, are we to recognize intelligence in the
things of the world around us?"
Budikka
Was that the same Aristotle who believed that men had more teeth than
women and never bothered to count them?
How much of the "facts" you present have you personally checked out?
Aristotle did astounding comprehensive work in a wide variety of
fields. That he got some things wrong is not a particularly powerful
criticism. Before you attack Aristotle for not checking the facts you
might, well, check the facts and read his works. He did not reject
experimentation and observation, he did see those as the basis for
understanding the world.
It wasn't so much that he rejected experimentation and
observation as he didn't have the tools to do more than
desultory work of that nature. Aristotle was from an
age where the accurate thermometer, clock and scale
were unavailable, so was almost completely unable to
do experiments as we understand them. To compensate,
he and his peers focused on analysis of the world by
pure reason, frequently leading to what was (to our
eyes) bizarre conclusions.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
Did he have tools to, say, I don't know, LOOK INSIDE A WOMAN'S MOUTH?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Law Student's Take on Intelligent Design |
02 Apr 2007 02:27:38 PM |
|
|
On Apr 2, 2:05 pm, "Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 2, 1:38 pm, wrote:
On Mar 31, 11:49 am, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 28 Mar 2007 22:26:18 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Conspiracy of Doves"
<mark_d...@yahoo.com> in
<1175145978.337105.291...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Mar 28, 6:19 pm, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/24rjhv
"There was no way I was going to sit in class and let such drivel pass
without comment. How, I asked, are we to recognize intelligence in the
things of the world around us?"
Budikka
Was that the same Aristotle who believed that men had more teeth than
women and never bothered to count them?
How much of the "facts" you present have you personally checked out?
Aristotle did astounding comprehensive work in a wide variety of
fields. That he got some things wrong is not a particularly powerful
criticism. Before you attack Aristotle for not checking the facts you
might, well, check the facts and read his works. He did not reject
experimentation and observation, he did see those as the basis for
understanding the world.
It wasn't so much that he rejected experimentation and
observation as he didn't have the tools to do more than
desultory work of that nature. Aristotle was from an
age where the accurate thermometer, clock and scale
were unavailable, so was almost completely unable to
do experiments as we understand them. To compensate,
he and his peers focused on analysis of the world by
pure reason, frequently leading to what was (to our
eyes) bizarre conclusions.
Did he have tools to, say, I don't know, LOOK INSIDE A WOMAN'S MOUTH?
But that would have required that he get close
enough to touch a woman...apparently, he
wasn't equipped for that experiment. ;-)
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: A Law Student's Take on Intelligent Design |
30 Mar 2007 10:00:31 PM |
|
|
On Mar 28, 11:26 pm, "Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_d...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Mar 28, 6:19 pm, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/24rjhv
"There was no way I was going to sit in class and let such drivel pass
without comment. How, I asked, are we to recognize intelligence in the
things of the world around us?"
Budikka
Was that the same Aristotle who believed that men had more teeth than
women and never bothered to count them?
The very same. He seemed to have a poor opinion of women.
Diotima was a priestess who taught Socrates, who in turn taught Plato,
who in turn taught Aristotle. Plato had an apparently enlightened
view of women's intellect, and since Aristotle taught Alexander, who
was in love with his horse, clearly something went seriously wrong
with Aristotle!
I think Monty Python encapsulated it best of all:
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach
about the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
after half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away,
half a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
And Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And Ren=E9 Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker,
but a bugger when he's pissed.
Boing!
See it performed on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dm_WRFJwGsbY
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
