If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   German neurologist claims to have found the area of the brain where evil lurks in killers, rapists and robbers. This is not a movie plot   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 184
    More: Scary, German government, developmental disorder, genetic predisposition, antisocial behavior, completely normal, serotonin, rapists, personality disorders  
•       •       •

10551 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Feb 2013 at 9:56 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



184 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-06 11:51:17 PM

Shadow Blasko: scraping-fetus-off-the-wheel: Dear god don't let that scientist get near a pineal gland with a resonator device.

Ohhh.. but why not?

Brains are tasty... and if my assistants suddenly get all kinky and leathered up... who am I to complain?


"If there is a statistical correlation between schizophrenia and the pineal gland, they may be feeling or seeing what we saw."

"Well, what about the hard on I got? Is there a statistical correlation for that too?"
 
2013-02-06 11:52:59 PM
So there is a region of the brain dedicated to religion.  Your turn, atheists.
 
2013-02-06 11:53:27 PM

PsiChick: 1. Put snakes on plane: PsiChick: A) This is the most unscientific bullshiat I've read in a while. 'Good' and 'evil' are judgement values, not measurable phenomenon.

The predominant moral school of thought disagrees with your position. So do the vast majority of people when interviewed.

Let me rephrase. They are not measurable phenomenon  in the context of scientific learning, especially since one culture's 'evil' is another culture's 'WTF, why do you not do that, don't you know the gods will hit you with a lightning bolt for not doing it you heathen'.


But "violence" is a measurable phenomenon.
 
2013-02-06 11:55:56 PM

1. Put snakes on plane: You don't need to rephrase. You're obviously talking about moral relativism. Sam Harris addresses the science of morality directly in his books, and there's a plethora of moral realists from Plato to Boyd who explain why moral ambiguity is meaningless. We can measure it in absolute terms--x is morally wrong, true or not--or through a sort of hybridization with negative utility (two murders is twice as bad as one), but whatever our method, it is measurable.


Science does not concern itself with morality, because science only concerns itself with things that can be proven. You cannot prove that it is bad to kill. You can prove that it is antisocial, you can prove that it involves the loss of at least one life, you cannot prove that it is 'evil' because evil, as a concept, is  not part of science. Didn't your second-grade teacher cover this? Science  only tells you  how the frog was made--it's up to religion, theology, and morality to tell you  why, or whether that frog is a good or evil frog.

Uchiha_Cycliste: I don't think it's so hard to generalize things sufficiently to find an area. We call it the area that doesn't care about knowingly inflicting harm on others without their consent.  I feel like that's an area you could see light up or not when you are in the process of hurting another.


A) Read what I already addressed. Science has very strict rules on what it does or doesn't address. People who claim otherwise are misapplying the scientific method.

B) As I said, a sympathetic reaction to the pain of other humans is normal. Some people clearly don't have it, on a gradient scale. They know they're causing pain and don't care. So yeah, that can completely be measured, and I'd love to see decent research on that.
 
2013-02-07 12:00:33 AM

mrswood: Frowned at article and didn't read. Which line do you get in for the govt mandated lobotomies?


Don't be silly.  We haven't even gotten the death panels up and running yet.
 
2013-02-07 12:04:21 AM

ciberido: PsiChick: 1. Put snakes on plane: PsiChick: A) This is the most unscientific bullshiat I've read in a while. 'Good' and 'evil' are judgement values, not measurable phenomenon.

The predominant moral school of thought disagrees with your position. So do the vast majority of people when interviewed.

Let me rephrase. They are not measurable phenomenon  in the context of scientific learning, especially since one culture's 'evil' is another culture's 'WTF, why do you not do that, don't you know the gods will hit you with a lightning bolt for not doing it you heathen'.

But "violence" is a measurable phenomenon.


Certainly. A correlation between this area of the brain going dark and violence is a valid scientific study. It's just not TFA. TFA is some idiot pretending to run a scientific study on a judgement value, which is not scientific in the slightest.
 
2013-02-07 12:06:02 AM

ciberido: mrswood: Frowned at article and didn't read. Which line do you get in for the govt mandated lobotomies?

Don't be silly.  We haven't even gotten the death panels up and running yet.


Yes, skip the lobotomies! Straight to the death panels!
 
2013-02-07 12:07:25 AM
Hey don't forget to check out

AMUSING9 Classic Team-Up Showdowns(Featured Partner)
 
2013-02-07 12:09:18 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Also Yes.


HAHAHAHAH

This recent episode was AWESOME. :)
 
2013-02-07 12:10:41 AM

PsiChick: 1. Put snakes on plane: You don't need to rephrase. You're obviously talking about moral relativism. Sam Harris addresses the science of morality directly in his books, and there's a plethora of moral realists from Plato to Boyd who explain why moral ambiguity is meaningless. We can measure it in absolute terms--x is morally wrong, true or not--or through a sort of hybridization with negative utility (two murders is twice as bad as one), but whatever our method, it is measurable.

Science does not concern itself with morality, because science only concerns itself with things that can be proven. You cannot prove that it is bad to kill. You can prove that it is antisocial, you can prove that it involves the loss of at least one life, you cannot prove that it is 'evil' because evil, as a concept, is  not part of science. Didn't your second-grade teacher cover this? Science  only tells you  how the frog was made--it's up to religion, theology, and morality to tell you  why, or whether that frog is a good or evil frog.

Uchiha_Cycliste: I don't think it's so hard to generalize things sufficiently to find an area. We call it the area that doesn't care about knowingly inflicting harm on others without their consent.  I feel like that's an area you could see light up or not when you are in the process of hurting another.

A) Read what I already addressed. Science has very strict rules on what it does or doesn't address. People who claim otherwise are misapplying the scientific method.

B) As I said, a sympathetic reaction to the pain of other humans is normal. Some people clearly don't have it, on a gradient scale. They know they're causing pain and don't care. So yeah, that can completely be measured, and I'd love to see decent research on that.


I get ya, I was just saying that I think we could look at the moral/ethical thing a different way by changing how we define it. Remove some of the intangible mystery to it.
 
2013-02-07 12:11:57 AM

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: Uchiha_Cycliste: Also Yes.

HAHAHAHAH

This recent episode was AWESOME. :)


Did Krieger finally master YYZ?   =P
 
2013-02-07 12:13:37 AM

The Angry Hand of God: So there is a region of the brain dedicated to religion.  Your turn, atheists.


Atheists have a creative/fiction part of their mind too, they just use it more productively.
your move
 
2013-02-07 12:15:11 AM
I bet this sucker is going to go off like a fire alarm the first time that they hook it up to a darkie.

It's ok to be racist against black people?  No, only Germans?  Then carry on.
 
2013-02-07 12:20:13 AM

perigee: What a German Neurologist might look like:

[filmdump.files.wordpress.com image 850x478]


Sorry, he's an A2Mologist
 
2013-02-07 12:21:31 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Uchiha_Cycliste: I don't think it's so hard to generalize things sufficiently to find an area. We call it the area that doesn't care about knowingly inflicting harm on others without their consent.  I feel like that's an area you could see light up or not when you are in the process of hurting another.

A) Read what I already addressed. Science has very strict rules on what it does or doesn't address. People who claim otherwise are misapplying the scientific method.

B) As I said, a sympathetic reaction to the pain of other humans is normal. Some people clearly don't have it, on a gradient scale. They know they're causing pain and don't care. So yeah, that can completely be measured, and I'd love to see decent research on that.

I get ya, I was just saying that I think we could look at the moral/ethical thing a different way by changing how we define it. Remove some of the intangible mystery to it.


That's true, but applying science to morality is a bad idea for a lot of reasons. If this sort of study needs to be done, it would be better to try and correlate behavior to cause without going into morality.
 
2013-02-07 12:22:38 AM

Baron Harkonnen: It's ok to be racist against black people? No, only Germans? Then carry on.


German isn't a race.
 
2013-02-07 12:23:36 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: The Angry Hand of God: So there is a region of the brain dedicated to religion.  Your turn, atheists.

Atheists have a creative/fiction part of their mind too, they just use it more productively.
your move


Exactly.  Atheists are living in their own fiction.  I wouldn't call it productive, but constantly battling yourself denying my existence is futile.
 
2013-02-07 12:24:44 AM

PsiChick: Uchiha_Cycliste: Uchiha_Cycliste: I don't think it's so hard to generalize things sufficiently to find an area. We call it the area that doesn't care about knowingly inflicting harm on others without their consent.  I feel like that's an area you could see light up or not when you are in the process of hurting another.

A) Read what I already addressed. Science has very strict rules on what it does or doesn't address. People who claim otherwise are misapplying the scientific method.

B) As I said, a sympathetic reaction to the pain of other humans is normal. Some people clearly don't have it, on a gradient scale. They know they're causing pain and don't care. So yeah, that can completely be measured, and I'd love to see decent research on that.

I get ya, I was just saying that I think we could look at the moral/ethical thing a different way by changing how we define it. Remove some of the intangible mystery to it.

That's true, but applying science to morality is a bad idea for a lot of reasons. If this sort of study needs to be done, it would be better to try and correlate behavior to cause without going into morality.


I want to agree with you, but I think its maybe possible that if enough people agree on what morality means, then we could maybe be a little hand-wavey about it and imagine morality to be an alias for a more specific list of traits. It's just kinda neat.
 
2013-02-07 12:25:27 AM

The Angry Hand of God: Uchiha_Cycliste: The Angry Hand of God: So there is a region of the brain dedicated to religion.  Your turn, atheists.

Atheists have a creative/fiction part of their mind too, they just use it more productively.
your move

Exactly.  Atheists are living in their own fiction.  I wouldn't call it productive, but constantly battling yourself denying my existence is futile.


But you're not *my* god, my God is Biki, the bike god.

\Bee-key
 
2013-02-07 12:28:01 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: PsiChick: Uchiha_Cycliste: Uchiha_Cycliste: I don't think it's so hard to generalize things sufficiently to find an area. We call it the area that doesn't care about knowingly inflicting harm on others without their consent.  I feel like that's an area you could see light up or not when you are in the process of hurting another.

A) Read what I already addressed. Science has very strict rules on what it does or doesn't address. People who claim otherwise are misapplying the scientific method.

B) As I said, a sympathetic reaction to the pain of other humans is normal. Some people clearly don't have it, on a gradient scale. They know they're causing pain and don't care. So yeah, that can completely be measured, and I'd love to see decent research on that.

I get ya, I was just saying that I think we could look at the moral/ethical thing a different way by changing how we define it. Remove some of the intangible mystery to it.

That's true, but applying science to morality is a bad idea for a lot of reasons. If this sort of study needs to be done, it would be better to try and correlate behavior to cause without going into morality.

I want to agree with you, but I think its maybe possible that if enough people agree on what morality means, then we could maybe be a little hand-wavey about it and imagine morality to be an alias for a more specific list of traits. It's just kinda neat.


That would actually be a question that anthropology would debate about. Like, I'm pretty sure there are multiple anthropologists doing exactly that. It's one of the coolest parts of anthropology--people's ideas about stuff are usually just names for behaviors and traits. It's so fun to analyze, especially when you get into mystic abilities--take a hallucinating guy and stick him in America and they'll call him crazy, stick him in Scotland and they'll shrug and ask what he wants with his haggis. :p
 
2013-02-07 12:32:31 AM

PhiloeBedoe: [i1079.photobucket.com image 311x396]


....AND DONE here
 
2013-02-07 12:37:16 AM

PsiChick: Uchiha_Cycliste: PsiChick: Uchiha_Cycliste: Uchiha_Cycliste: I don't think it's so hard to generalize things sufficiently to find an area. We call it the area that doesn't care about knowingly inflicting harm on others without their consent.  I feel like that's an area you could see light up or not when you are in the process of hurting another.

A) Read what I already addressed. Science has very strict rules on what it does or doesn't address. People who claim otherwise are misapplying the scientific method.

B) As I said, a sympathetic reaction to the pain of other humans is normal. Some people clearly don't have it, on a gradient scale. They know they're causing pain and don't care. So yeah, that can completely be measured, and I'd love to see decent research on that.

I get ya, I was just saying that I think we could look at the moral/ethical thing a different way by changing how we define it. Remove some of the intangible mystery to it.

That's true, but applying science to morality is a bad idea for a lot of reasons. If this sort of study needs to be done, it would be better to try and correlate behavior to cause without going into morality.

I want to agree with you, but I think its maybe possible that if enough people agree on what morality means, then we could maybe be a little hand-wavey about it and imagine morality to be an alias for a more specific list of traits. It's just kinda neat.

That would actually be a question that anthropology would debate about. Like, I'm pretty sure there are multiple anthropologists doing exactly that. It's one of the coolest parts of anthropology--people's ideas about stuff are usually just names for behaviors and traits. It's so fun to analyze, especially when you get into mystic abilities--take a hallucinating guy and stick him in America and they'll call him crazy, stick him in Scotland and they'll shrug and ask what he wants with his haggis. :p


If Anthro were able to divine (heh) a coherent definition, could neuro use it then?
 
2013-02-07 12:42:52 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Did Krieger finally master YYZ? =P


That would be telling.

That said, Krieger *did* get to do some awesome stuff!
 
2013-02-07 12:43:36 AM
i'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
 
2013-02-07 12:45:07 AM

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: Uchiha_Cycliste: Did Krieger finally master YYZ? =P

That would be telling.

That said, Krieger *did* get to do some awesome stuff!


For the record, YYZ is a terrible, terrible song.
 
2013-02-07 12:48:06 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: That would actually be a question that anthropology would debate about. Like, I'm pretty sure there are multiple anthropologists doing exactly that. It's one of the coolest parts of anthropology--people's ideas about stuff are usually just names for behaviors and traits. It's so fun to analyze, especially when you get into mystic abilities--take a hallucinating guy and stick him in America and they'll call him crazy, stick him in Scotland and they'll shrug and ask what he wants with his haggis. :p

If Anthro were able to divine (heh) a coherent definition, could neuro use it then?


Theoretically, but it would be a really, really bad idea to use any terms of morality instead of a behavior list for purely social reasons. I mean, look at TFA--some legislator with no sense whatsoever reads that, and boom, something retarded gets touted as sane policy. There's also the question of whether the definition would be a true list of behaviors; knowing anthropology, it might be something like 'behavior the collective group agrees upon as deviant'.

/Though that would actually be a fascinating study in and of itself.
 
2013-02-07 12:48:12 AM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: Uchiha_Cycliste: Did Krieger finally master YYZ? =P

That would be telling.

That said, Krieger *did* get to do some awesome stuff!

For the record, YYZ is a terrible, terrible song.


really? balls.
Does that make the Krieger bit funnier or less funny?
 
2013-02-07 12:48:21 AM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: For the record, YYZ is a terrible, terrible song.


We've certainly established that I'm of no authority to speak objectively about terrible, terrible songs.
 
2013-02-07 12:50:24 AM
Future crime, anyone?
 
2013-02-07 12:53:06 AM

PsiChick: Uchiha_Cycliste: That would actually be a question that anthropology would debate about. Like, I'm pretty sure there are multiple anthropologists doing exactly that. It's one of the coolest parts of anthropology--people's ideas about stuff are usually just names for behaviors and traits. It's so fun to analyze, especially when you get into mystic abilities--take a hallucinating guy and stick him in America and they'll call him crazy, stick him in Scotland and they'll shrug and ask what he wants with his haggis. :p

If Anthro were able to divine (heh) a coherent definition, could neuro use it then?

Theoretically, but it would be a really, really bad idea to use any terms of morality instead of a behavior list for purely social reasons. I mean, look at TFA--some legislator with no sense whatsoever reads that, and boom, something retarded gets touted as sane policy. There's also the question of whether the definition would be a true list of behaviors; knowing anthropology, it might be something like 'behavior the collective group agrees upon as deviant'.

/Though that would actually be a fascinating study in and of itself.


So in essence you're saying while it *could* be done it's not a good idea. Well it's great to know that scientists consider both can they do something and if they should
 
2013-02-07 12:53:44 AM

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: The All-Powerful Atheismo: For the record, YYZ is a terrible, terrible song.

We've certainly established that I'm of no authority to speak objectively about terrible, terrible songs.


aw hell nah, I'm not clicking that.

\nice try though
 
2013-02-07 12:54:10 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: Uchiha_Cycliste: Did Krieger finally master YYZ? =P

That would be telling.

That said, Krieger *did* get to do some awesome stuff!

For the record, YYZ is a terrible, terrible song.

really? balls.
Does that make the Krieger bit funnier or less funny?


Oh well it's a technically difficult if not impossible song, so that's the joke.

It just sounds like shiat, with all the different timing schemes and whatnot.
 
2013-02-07 12:54:52 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: The All-Powerful Atheismo: For the record, YYZ is a terrible, terrible song.

We've certainly established that I'm of no authority to speak objectively about terrible, terrible songs.

aw hell nah, I'm not clicking that.

\nice try though


Oh come on.  You know you want to.

Click one for the Gipper.
 
2013-02-07 12:57:02 AM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Uchiha_Cycliste: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: Uchiha_Cycliste: Did Krieger finally master YYZ? =P

That would be telling.

That said, Krieger *did* get to do some awesome stuff!

For the record, YYZ is a terrible, terrible song.

really? balls.
Does that make the Krieger bit funnier or less funny?

Oh well it's a technically difficult if not impossible song, so that's the joke.

It just sounds like shiat, with all the different timing schemes and whatnot.


well I get the difficulty part, but do you think the fact it sucks as a song makes it funnier ?
 
2013-02-07 12:57:20 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: PsiChick: Uchiha_Cycliste: That would actually be a question that anthropology would debate about. Like, I'm pretty sure there are multiple anthropologists doing exactly that. It's one of the coolest parts of anthropology--people's ideas about stuff are usually just names for behaviors and traits. It's so fun to analyze, especially when you get into mystic abilities--take a hallucinating guy and stick him in America and they'll call him crazy, stick him in Scotland and they'll shrug and ask what he wants with his haggis. :p

If Anthro were able to divine (heh) a coherent definition, could neuro use it then?

Theoretically, but it would be a really, really bad idea to use any terms of morality instead of a behavior list for purely social reasons. I mean, look at TFA--some legislator with no sense whatsoever reads that, and boom, something retarded gets touted as sane policy. There's also the question of whether the definition would be a true list of behaviors; knowing anthropology, it might be something like 'behavior the collective group agrees upon as deviant'.

/Though that would actually be a fascinating study in and of itself.

So in essence you're saying while it *could* be done it's not a good idea. Well it's great to know that scientists consider both can they do something and if they should


Bahahahahaha....

/But yeah, basically.
 
2013-02-07 12:57:38 AM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Uchiha_Cycliste: Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: The All-Powerful Atheismo: For the record, YYZ is a terrible, terrible song.

We've certainly established that I'm of no authority to speak objectively about terrible, terrible songs.

aw hell nah, I'm not clicking that.

\nice try though

Oh come on.  You know you want to.

Click one for the Gipper.


Maybe I will, maybe I won't. Which is a lot better than usual
 
2013-02-07 12:59:16 AM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-02-07 12:59:23 AM

PsiChick: Uchiha_Cycliste: PsiChick: Uchiha_Cycliste: That would actually be a question that anthropology would debate about. Like, I'm pretty sure there are multiple anthropologists doing exactly that. It's one of the coolest parts of anthropology--people's ideas about stuff are usually just names for behaviors and traits. It's so fun to analyze, especially when you get into mystic abilities--take a hallucinating guy and stick him in America and they'll call him crazy, stick him in Scotland and they'll shrug and ask what he wants with his haggis. :p

If Anthro were able to divine (heh) a coherent definition, could neuro use it then?

Theoretically, but it would be a really, really bad idea to use any terms of morality instead of a behavior list for purely social reasons. I mean, look at TFA--some legislator with no sense whatsoever reads that, and boom, something retarded gets touted as sane policy. There's also the question of whether the definition would be a true list of behaviors; knowing anthropology, it might be something like 'behavior the collective group agrees upon as deviant'.

/Though that would actually be a fascinating study in and of itself.

So in essence you're saying while it *could* be done it's not a good idea. Well it's great to know that scientists consider both can they do something and if they should

Bahahahahaha....

/But yeah, basically.


Guess we'll wait and see.

Also, even taking into consideration out conversation, have you considered that possibly the whole thing is true and he did *essentially* find the good/evil area?
 
2013-02-07 01:07:30 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Guess we'll wait and see.

Also, even taking into consideration out conversation, have you considered that possibly the whole thing is true and he did *essentially* find the good/evil area?


He found  something, I just have no idea what. It may well be the ability to feel sympathetic pain, though. That would be one hell of a result...
 
2013-02-07 01:10:58 AM

PsiChick: Uchiha_Cycliste: Guess we'll wait and see.

Also, even taking into consideration out conversation, have you considered that possibly the whole thing is true and he did *essentially* find the good/evil area?

He found  something, I just have no idea what. It may well be the ability to feel sympathetic pain, though. That would be one hell of a result...


I agree with you (I'm not sure of you've said it or just implied it) that finding the good/evil part of the brain isn't really the likeliest thing IF we did find it, there are going to be a lot of really neat side-effects. In science and law. I wonder if it's better if he is somehow a little wrong ; keeps things simpler all around.
 
2013-02-07 01:13:06 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: The Angry Hand of God: Uchiha_Cycliste: The Angry Hand of God: So there is a region of the brain dedicated to religion.  Your turn, atheists.

Atheists have a creative/fiction part of their mind too, they just use it more productively.
your move

Exactly.  Atheists are living in their own fiction.  I wouldn't call it productive, but constantly battling yourself denying my existence is futile.

But you're not *my* god, my God is Biki, the bike god.

\Bee-key


does he ride a bike? or a 4 wheeler
 
2013-02-07 01:16:51 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: PsiChick: Uchiha_Cycliste: Guess we'll wait and see.

Also, even taking into consideration out conversation, have you considered that possibly the whole thing is true and he did *essentially* find the good/evil area?

He found  something, I just have no idea what. It may well be the ability to feel sympathetic pain, though. That would be one hell of a result...

I agree with you (I'm not sure of you've said it or just implied it) that finding the good/evil part of the brain isn't really the likeliest thing IF we did find it, there are going to be a lot of really neat side-effects. In science and law. I wonder if it's better if he is somehow a little wrong ; keeps things simpler all around.


Well, no, I mean that there  is no good\evil part of the brain. A part of the brain regulating sympathetic reactions, fark yes, but a good\evil part of the brain just doesn't exist as far as I know. Good and evil are active choices. Even those with no sympathetic reactions can choose to do good, since society does teach them what good is and how to do it.
 
2013-02-07 01:22:21 AM
'But when I will look at young people, and I see there are developmental disorders in the lower forehead brain, I can say that there is a felon in the making with 66 per cent probability. "

Is this a bad mistranslation, or does this "respected German neurologist" think that there's actually a region known as the "lower forehead brain"??

Because I'm just a lawyer, and even I know there's no such place. There's not even a "lower forebrain" so he can't even claim that's what he meant.
 
2013-02-07 01:34:27 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: Uchiha_Cycliste: The Angry Hand of God: Uchiha_Cycliste: The Angry Hand of God: So there is a region of the brain dedicated to religion.  Your turn, atheists.

Atheists have a creative/fiction part of their mind too, they just use it more productively.
your move

Exactly.  Atheists are living in their own fiction.  I wouldn't call it productive, but constantly battling yourself denying my existence is futile.

But you're not *my* god, my God is Biki, the bike god.

\Bee-key

does he ride a bike? or a 4 wheeler


I suppose he could ride a bike if he wanted to, his *IS* a god... it's sort of "where does the gorilla sit" sort of a question. What he does is encourage good bike works. You do things to help others. Wrench on their bikes, give them bikes or parts, help people out while out on rides and you do it for the purpose of helping them. You do it because you want to see more people riding a bike. So, you earn up points for your good bike works and when you want/need something you ask Biki for it and if you have enough credits you get it. Simple =D
 
2013-02-07 01:37:15 AM

PsiChick: Uchiha_Cycliste: PsiChick: Uchiha_Cycliste: Guess we'll wait and see.

Also, even taking into consideration out conversation, have you considered that possibly the whole thing is true and he did *essentially* find the good/evil area?

He found  something, I just have no idea what. It may well be the ability to feel sympathetic pain, though. That would be one hell of a result...

I agree with you (I'm not sure of you've said it or just implied it) that finding the good/evil part of the brain isn't really the likeliest thing IF we did find it, there are going to be a lot of really neat side-effects. In science and law. I wonder if it's better if he is somehow a little wrong ; keeps things simpler all around.

Well, no, I mean that there  is no good\evil part of the brain. A part of the brain regulating sympathetic reactions, fark yes, but a good\evil part of the brain just doesn't exist as far as I know. Good and evil are active choices. Even those with no sympathetic reactions can choose to do good, since society does teach them what good is and how to do it.


I see what you mean here. So we could maybe have a spot for deviant, intentional, injurious and unempathetic  actions. A good definition that will stand up over time because of reliance upon norms. But good and evil don't really have meanings and what meanings they do have are extremely fluid and tied intricately with frame of reference.
 
2013-02-07 01:38:38 AM

PhiloeBedoe: [i1079.photobucket.com image 311x396]


I said to myself that if the Shadow were not referenced in the first five posts, then Fark was slipping.  Thank you for keeping my faith intact.
 
2013-02-07 01:39:06 AM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Interesting.


Verrry interesting.

chickaboomer.com
 
2013-02-07 01:39:17 AM

Wolfmanjames: PhiloeBedoe: [i1079.photobucket.com image 311x396]

I said to myself that if the Shadow were not referenced in the first five posts, then Fark was slipping.  Thank you for keeping my faith intact.



I wanted it in the Boobies too.
 
2013-02-07 01:40:56 AM

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: Uchiha_Cycliste: Did Krieger finally master YYZ? =P

That would be telling.

That said, Krieger *did* get to do some awesome stuff!


what *DID* he do in the last ep? I just remember Archer going to a B&B... and then needing music. =P
 
2013-02-07 01:46:29 AM
He's an author, not a doctor.
/pseudoscience
 
Displayed 50 of 184 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report