David Kirby:

I realize my Huffington essay was rather long and complicated. Here is a brief synopsis of just SOME of the larger points raised in the piece. I will probably alter this a little, but it hits most of the main topics. Please feel free to circulate - DK

● Up to 1 in 50 children (2%) may have a genetic mutation that puts them at risk for mitochondrial dysfunction.

● Up to 20% of all children with autism may have an underlying mitochondrial dysfunction

● Children with mitochondrial dysfunction are more likely to regress into autism between the ages 1 and 2 years, if they have fever or illness from viral infections or vaccines.

● The CDC is aware of this difficult situation and is taking measures immediately to address the current national vaccine schedule.

● The genetic susceptibility for mitochondrial dysfunction in autism is inherited through the father, not the mother, as previously thought, and is not rare at all.

● The DNA mutation might not be enough in itself to confer cellular dysfunction, and many doctors believe there is an environmental trigger as well.

● They note that thimerosal, mercury, aluminum, pollution, pesticides, medicines and prenatal alcohol exposure have all been shown to damage mitochondria.

● Other doctors believe that a corn-byproduct based diet in America has put children in a constant inflammatory state, thus making the DNA mutation more pathogenic.

● While some children with mitochondrial dysfunction regress into autism following fever and illness from a viral infection; other kids, like Hannah Poling, clearly regress following a reaction to vaccines.

● The exact percentage of people with vaccine induced autism is unknown. But even a 1% rate could mean 10,000 Americans with vaccine related autism, at a cost of many billions of dollars for lifetime care.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Neil deGrasse Tyson, newton, essay, intelligent design' to 'Neil deGrasse Tyson, newton, essay, intelligent design, god of the gaps' - edited by xxovercastxx

This is good reading on the story: http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7075673/what-the-papers-wont-say.thtml

I just have to say that I admire your explanation points.

In reply to this comment by burdturgler:
lol .. I dont even want to reply to this. I just want to quote it so that I know it will be here forever and ever.


>> ^shinyblurry:

well, you've got me beat by two explanation points..i guess i've been outdone. there was something about you that was screaming genius, but I guess I got that confused with undigested corn.
>> ^burdturgler:
That's interesting for me on a personal level because, shortly after taking my S.A.T.'s, I received a letter in the mail from Mensa. It turns out that it wasn't my 151 IQ that caught their attention, but rather my ability to string 51 exclamation points together at the end of a sentence in order to drive my point in the essay home. I guess we're kindred souls after a fashion, if you'll pardon the pun.

lol .. I dont even want to reply to this. I just want to quote it so that I know it will be here forever and ever.


>> ^shinyblurry:

well, you've got me beat by two explanation points..i guess i've been outdone. there was something about you that was screaming genius, but I guess I got that confused with undigested corn.
>> ^burdturgler:
That's interesting for me on a personal level because, shortly after taking my S.A.T.'s, I received a letter in the mail from Mensa. It turns out that it wasn't my 151 IQ that caught their attention, but rather my ability to string 51 exclamation points together at the end of a sentence in order to drive my point in the essay home. I guess we're kindred souls after a fashion, if you'll pardon the pun.

well, you've got me beat by two explanation points..i guess i've been outdone. there was something about you that was screaming genius, but I guess I got that confused with undigested corn.

>> ^burdturgler:
That's interesting for me on a personal level because, shortly after taking my S.A.T.'s, I received a letter in the mail from Mensa. It turns out that it wasn't my 151 IQ that caught their attention, but rather my ability to string 51 exclamation points together at the end of a sentence in order to drive my point in the essay home. I guess we're kindred souls after a fashion, if you'll pardon the pun.

That's interesting for me on a personal level because, shortly after taking my S.A.T.'s, I received a letter in the mail from Mensa. It turns out that it wasn't my 151 IQ that caught their attention, but rather my ability to string 51 exclamation points together at the end of a sentence in order to drive my point in the essay home. I guess we're kindred souls after a fashion, if you'll pardon the pun.

Hmmm....

Now, is this actually a nasty troll against women?

Kind of. Sort of. Not really, but kinda sorta.

I shall write a little essay on the relative value of words, to explain.

I was in my late teens when the Feminist Movement of the seventies was getting going. This was a time of women reclaiming language.

Women were described as "Miss or Mrs". Men were "Mr", with no designation as to their marital status. Just "Mr". So women came up with "Ms". No indication of marital status. The word was chosen to have an equal "value" to Mr.

We were also struggling with being called "girl" rather than "woman."

I got into many conversations, trying to convince folks that calling a grown woman a "girl" is very insulting. I heard many different reasons why it is okay to call a woman that, and I eventually figured out a logical response to each of those reasons.

It came down to a simple test.

Say something about a woman, calling her a "girl". Now change the gender -- would you say the same thing about man and be able to use the word "boy"? Or does it sound completely insulting to call a man a boy in that situation?

Example:

"I'll have my girl get back to you on that" when meaning your 51-year-old support staff person. Would you say "I'll have my boy get back to you on that." Think you would do it? How about if your support staff person is a black man? Now try it. Really drawl out that "boy", Southern it up big time.

NO. FUCKING. WAY.

If you would not call a black man a "boy", you got no business calling a grown woman a "girl."

It's okay to use girl sometimes, just as it is okay to use boy. "Boys' Night Out." "Girls' Night Out." Equal value phrases. No problem with "girl" if you can substitute "boy" and not feel weird.

So here we have rottenseed's eloquence.

"tits cunts cocks balls"

Nicely balanced, two sexual characteristics for each gender. They aren't the same area of the body, but that is just a reflection of the realities of anatomy. Our stuff is top and bottom, men have their stuff in the same place.

The only thing that sits badly is the word "cunt." That word doesn't have a male equivalent in rottenseed's attempt to be balanced. A truly balanced word would have been something like vay jay jay, or even @Lann's cooter. Cooter is a sweet term.

The word "cunt" has been used too long and too often as a pejorative to dismiss an entire woman as being just a body part, to shame her, to silence her, to reduce her to irrelevance. It wasn't that long ago that you wouldn't even hear or see the word -- it was spelled down to C-Word, and everyone knew what horrible thing had been said. Can't say that is true with the words "cocks" and "balls."

So "cunt" doesn't have a matched value word on the male side of this triumph of eloquence.

Women are starting to reclaim the word "cunt" for themselves, just as Eve Ensler made it okay to say vagina. I know you younger folks might be surprised to know this, but it wasn't that long ago NO ONE EVER said vagina. Penis was okay, but the word vagina was whispered and suggested and disguised (Lann's cooter, for example, it was always referred to with cute nicknames.) That was the beauty of Eve Ensler's Vagina Monologues. She set out to make vagina have the same "value" as penis, and she succeeded, brilliantly.

We haven't managed to reclaim "cunt" yet, but we are sneaking up on it.

So. To maintain the word value balance, just as I have been doing since 1970, I shall edit rottenseed's mature and eloquent tone poem to:

tits cooters cocks balls

TL DR: tits cooters cocks balls



>> ^rottenseed:

tits cunts cocks balls

You essay!

ive been searching for online sources myself. theres a few places you can find excerpts in pdf format but his full essays are hard to find online. but, his books are pretty inexpensive and you can find em at any bookstore, and if you can afford a lil extra there is a collection of his thats around 60 bucks i think that has all of his theological books and another collection that has most of his essays thats around 30 bucks

@shinyblurry, the great divorce is a poignant look at the relationship between the "saved" and "unsaved" in the afterlife. He tells an allegory of a bus ride the residents of hell get to take to heaven where they get to hang out for the day. At the end of the day they can stay if they want but all of em choose to get back on the bus. An interesting look into that choice and what makes them choose instead of just retelling the eternal punishment of a jerkoff god motif

Let me put it this way, the way I see it every god is as likely to exist as any other god or gods seeing as there is no empirical evidence pointing specifically to one or other. Without some sort of personal revelation I can't see how I could make the leap to Allah or Yahweh or Baal or the Hindu gods or scrap any notion of spiritual belief altogether. I would also be very interested to read this CS Lewis essay that you seem so taken with if you could provide a link.

QM, he was making the point that just because someone is not part of a majority, it doesn't make their nature wrong. He wasn't slamming conservative political ideology with that remark. You can calm down your automatic conservative reflux condition coughing up the virtues of conservatism.

>>> What is conservatism at its core? A system of traditions and laws formed in the fires of trial and error, over decades, over centuries. 99 out of 100 "new" ideas fail. I'm tired of liberals skipping the part where their ideas are challenged and going right to activist judges circumventing the will of the people.

Pedophilia is not wrong because it's abnormal. It's wrong because it turns those who are not mature enough to handle sex into sexual objects and unwitting participants, which does cause a degradation in them as a person, it's been psychologically proven to be detrimental to minors, etc. There's nothing in that that is religious, or is justified because of any person or group's moral code.

>>> A unified society does thrive on a universal moral code. Everywhere it is wrong to murder, everywhere it is wrong to steal (unless you're in government). If you believe your freedom ends where it wrongfully infringes on others' freedom, that's a root of morality.

If you can't make a reasoned argument against homosexuality that doesn't involve religion, then there shouldn't be a law against it. Homosexuality doesn't cause society any ill effects, nor does it cause the moral degradation of any of its participants in and of itself. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's basic inalienable rights. If you personally think it's immoral, fine, don't engage in homosexuality, speak up about how people shouldn't be gay in church, etc. But you should also support people's right to be gay if they choose, just as I support a racist's right to publish an essay favoring racism. I find their ideas reprehensible, but I would never fight to take away their right to free speech.

The issue is a lot more complex than you're making it sound. Families of all religions consist of one man/one woman. Most atheists families are probably the same. Without technology, there is no reproduction among 'faithful' gays.

If we have a socialist health care system, then irresponsible sexual practices among gay men are everyone's problem. Are you going to choose between a child dying of cancer and a gay man whose 'peccadilloes' landed him in the hospital? Ideally, a child should have a father and mother. It's not improbable that the adopted child of two gay fathers views one as more motherly, or in fact seeks a mother figure.

I do support gays in most endeavors, but when 3% of the population wishes to overthrow the traditional definition of what marriage is for the other 97%, that's not something to take lightly.

Discussions about if polygamy should be legal should be framed in the same regards. Polygamy shouldn't be illegal simply because you or even a majority of Americans thinks its wrong. A majority of Americans at one point thought blacks and whites drinking from the same water fountain was wrong, too.

I'm not against polygamy nor some type of gay civil union which can be self-defined as "marriage", but understand in both cases moral, social and legal upheavals would follow. There are all kinds of unforeseen consequences lurking out there. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Homosexuality is genetic. The brains of gay men are similar to those of straight women. It will likely be something that can be 'cured' in the womb in a few decades. There is no need to glorify it.

QM, he was making the point that just because someone is not part of a majority, it doesn't make their nature wrong. He wasn't slamming conservative political ideology with that remark. You can calm down your automatic conservative reflux condition coughing up the virtues of conservatism.

Pedophilia is not wrong because it's abnormal. It's wrong because it turns those who are not mature enough to handle sex into sexual objects and unwitting participants, which does cause a degradation in them as a person, it's been psychologically proven to be detrimental to minors, etc. There's nothing in that that is religious, or is justified because of any person or group's moral code.

If you can't make a reasoned argument against homosexuality that doesn't involve religion, then there shouldn't be a law against it. Homosexuality doesn't cause society any ill effects, nor does it cause the moral degradation of any of its participants in and of itself. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's basic inalienable rights. If you personally think it's immoral, fine, don't engage in homosexuality, speak up about how people shouldn't be gay in church, etc. But you should also support people's right to be gay if they choose, just as I support a racist's right to publish an essay favoring racism. I find their ideas reprehensible, but I would never fight to take away their right to free speech.

Discussions about if polygamy should be legal should be framed in the same regards. Polygamy shouldn't be illegal simply because you or even a majority of Americans thinks its wrong. A majority of Americans at one point thought blacks and whites drinking from the same water fountain was wrong, too.

>> ^quantumushroom:

What's the cutoff? Republicans are less than 18% of the population. Can we take away some of their rights?
I assume you support taxing people that make more money at a higher rate, punishing their success in the name of a "fair share" which is then distributed unfairly and wastefully, don't you? I assume you support preventing people in high crime areas from owning firearms, infringing on their right to self-defense with the best possible tools?

What it comes down to is gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone by their nature.
Then do you support polygamy?

The difference is that one has actual facts behind it....the other is just a loudmouthed child behind it.

Per this sift, my post was an opinion piece based on observation and what actually happened in the early 90s. Calling a socialist "Cankles" is far less obnoxious than the grandiose plans these utopian knuckleheads have for MY freedom.

One can be demonstrated, the other is just someone looking for attention.

Everyone that posts seeks some attention. Everyone that does anything in the public eye is seeking some kind of attention, positive or negative. I'm merely typing my mind and if you disagree with it, that's all right by me. If a liberal wants to prove something with facts and data, I'm all for it.

When we call someone racist, we're arguing that what the person is doing is wrong: judging people based on their race.

You mean like when the left prejudges all minorities as helpless victims who need special government help?

When you call someone a name, you're ignoring the actual issues at hand and just playing a child's game. the same ad homs you always do QM and you instantly lose any high ground you might have gained if you were actually debating instead of slinging mud. Sure, dems do it too, but again, using that as your excuse is what a child does.

I harbor no illusions about "changing" anyone's mind about anything. I doubt anyone logs on thinking, I hope someone challenges my belief system so I can see their side of things!

More peeps enjoy witty sarcasm than long-winded essays. I admit to not always being witty, but so what, I ain't gettin' paid, this is a labor of love and annoyance.

QM FTW.

It's a complicated issue that can't be summed up in one statement "bad to discriminate".

The linked article doesn't build a convincing case at any rate. California's asian population is huge relative to other states. I lived in a town that was 50% chinese. So, you would expect asian-americans to make up a sizable percentage of admission candidates to california's colleges and universities. Elite people from all walks of life apply to Harvard and the other Ivies. What percentage of asian americans are applying to those schools relative to the other groups?

Re: The kid that had the GPA, test scores, and 7 or so AP credits, and didn't get in, I would say that there is not enough information to understand if he deserved to go or not. Community service? Extra-curricular activities? What about his essay and story? Is this guy some egghead loner? Who wants to go to college with someone who is not well rounded? In addition, did his high school inflate grades? Did he hail from a rich family who could afford tutors to raise his test scores? Lot's of unanswered questions.

As someone who has sat on an admission committee for an Ivy League graduate business school, a perfect GPA and GMAT would not cut it. Not the same as undergrad, but I imagine that there is less fixation on scores as well.

GPA and standardized test scores should obviously be huge factors in admissions, but certainly not the only factors. Also, any smart student would apply to several colleges. Noone should feel entitled to get into any college; admission is not a right.

To echo a sentiment above, I have often felt that colleges should matriculate anyone who wants to go who can do the work. Graduation should be the gate, not admission.