Abortion Ban Rejected

[mike1011]

My point was not really the proofs. Aquinas's design argument  #5 was inductive and therefore not science. To claim he was a proponent of ID is anachronistic.

 

Inductive logic which leads to a principle of thought is science. If you define science as a method of experimentation, which is a modern definition, than you have a point. Sadly, that is not the perennial definition of a science. Science is any body of learning based on principles as is the classical definition. Math, for example, is considered a science as it's genus. Inductive logic is scientific according to the perennial definition.

 

Next, you stated that Aquinas did not believe in ID and went so far as to say I was incorrect. It is not anachronistic to state he was. An anachronism is placing something in the wrong time frame. St. Thomas believed in ID, hence his doctrine of ID is immutable and time has nothing to do with it.

 

The Franciscans, Scotus, Ockham, mostly reject the teleological arguments and for the most part subscribed to radical contingency.

Anselm for his part uses an a priori argument that in its age could be considered scientific because it is solid deduction.

 

You are 2/3rd right. Ochham denied teliological principles and went to nominalism. I agree that Anselm went to a priori knowledge, something Albert and Aquinas dismissed. Scotus on the other hand did believe in them. Teleology is a study of ends and causes and here Scotus did agree with some of the proofs. I don't see how this changes anything because no one considers Ockham or Anselm a Scholastic. Anselm was pre-Scholastic, the last of the patristics, and Ockham was never considered a scholastic because he denied scholasticism.

 

The problem is that science in the scholastic age was not based on the scientific method because it predates Bacon. Natural philosophy was pre-scientific method.

Maybe in Aquinas you find the antecedents of ID, but to say he subscribed to it is weak because Aquinas predates scientific theory.

 

You are incorrect because it was based on scientific principles. The difference being I chose the perennial definition you chose a very modern definition which does not preclude the perennial definition is wrong. You are being myopic if you think scientific theory makes science.

 

ID is the belief the world is intelligent and comes from a design. I quoted Aquinas sufficiently to know that he did teach that the world is designed and comes from God. Read the above quote as sufficient evidence.

[UConn James]

Prehistoric version of Vonage?

846804[/snapback]

 

Vonage! Sweet!

[mike1011]

That's funny. I thought I was asking a legitimate question.  But I guess I am a moral liberal now becaue I was asking a question on ID based off your words.

 

First off I didn't know you were serious. Unlike some I feel like a bone-head, but seeing Darin's ignorant response I thought it was a hypothetical question so I apologize.

 

Gay people aren't born that way. There is no evidence to assert this. You have random hypothesii for their belief, but it is contrary to all evidence. Homosexuality is growing in the culture, which shows it's not genetic but a social issue. Many heterosexual people become homosexual (obviously not a large portion, but a large # of homosexuals were formally heterosexual), and some homosexuals who go through therapy with an open-mind can be helped back to understanding their true sexuality. Little Richard is a perfect example of someone who was once a homosexual who became heterosexual, yet there are thousands of such examples and receive no publicity.

 

A group called NARTH does a lot to work with homosexuals and help them. They have an entire page of articles to deal with the "born that way" legend:

http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html

 

Homosexuals also exhibit more social problems such as incredibly high levels of promiscuity, disease, mental disorders, etc.. This is truly a liberal issue that is blacklisted from most media sources just as Jesse Dirkhising's murder and rape was never a public issue, but gay beating is. http://www.newsnet14.com/?p=24&print=1

 

I'm sorry if I had offended you on my mistaken belief that you were being facetious. If you want the facts you certainly won't get them ordinarily through traditional means.

[Alaska Darin]

First off I didn't know you were serious. Unlike some I feel like a bone-head, but seeing Darin's ignorant response I thought it was a hypothetical question so I apologize.

Yeah, I wish I could just regurgitate the stuff they feed at the "pay for a date in heaven". That'd make my uber informed just like you are.

Gay people aren't born that way. There is no evidence to assert this. You have random hypothesii for their belief, but it is contrary to all evidence.

The world was once flat, too.

Homosexuality is growing in the culture, which shows it's not genetic but a social issue.

Perhaps it's more because people aren't killing/abusing them quite so much. Nah, it's got to be because the zealots need something to cling to.

Many heterosexual people become homosexual (obviously not a large portion, but a large # of homosexuals were formally heterosexual), and some homosexuals who go through therapy with an open-mind can be helped back to understanding their true sexuality.

Yeah, it's not that they try to be "normal" because it's a hell of alot easier to go along to get along. Nah, one day they just decide to "change" because they're just not having the success in their sex life that they'd expected. And you and the rest of the zealots wonder why people make fun of you.

 

I guess the queers in the Animal Kingdom just need some unforseen higher power to worship so they can get with the program, too. Perhaps "Mother NARTH" will hook them up.

[X. Benedict]

Inductive logic which leads to a principle of thought is science. If you define science as a method of experimentation, which is a modern definition, than you have a point. Sadly, that is not the perennial definition of a science. Science is any body of learning based on principles as is the classical definition. Math, for example, is considered a science as it's genus. Inductive logic is scientific according to the perennial definition.

 

I am not sure what you think induction means, but scholastics accepted as science the knowledge that precipitated from necessary truths derived from the syllogism.

 

Next, you stated that Aquinas did not believe in ID and went so far as to say I was incorrect. It is not anachronistic to state he was. An anachronism is placing something in the wrong time frame. St. Thomas believed in ID, hence his doctrine of ID is immutable and time has nothing to do with it.

 

C'mon now. Doctinal? I am pretty sure that Aquinas put proof number 5 last because it was the weakest of the arguments. :

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

 

This is a far cry from what is modernly understood as intelligent design theory.

You are 2/3rd right. Ochham denied teliological principles and went to nominalism. I agree that Anselm went to a priori knowledge, something Albert and Aquinas dismissed. Scotus on the other hand did believe in them. Teleology is a study of ends and causes and here Scotus did agree with some of the proofs.

 

Scotus if he believed in teleology it is weak in his system, but he makes no intelligent design arguments, but focuses on cognition rather than design. He is about as close to a nominalist as you can be, but does hold that there is a bare, common nature.

 

 

You are being myopic if you think scientific theory makes science.

 

Maybe my bad but that is exactly my point, science for the scholastics was based on the syllogism. Proponents of ID subscribe to it as a theory subject to scientific method which wasn't the concern of the scholastics at all.

 

ID is the belief the world is intelligent and comes from a design. I quoted Aquinas sufficiently to know that he did teach that the world is designed and comes from God. Read the above quote as sufficient evidence.

846928[/snapback]

 

What I am unconvinced about is that Aquinas believed in what is modernly called

Intelligent Design. His final cause argument doesn't fit well with the modern framework.

[mike1011]

Yeah, I wish I could just regurgitate the stuff they feed at the "pay for a date in heaven".  That'd make my uber informed just like you are.

 

The world was once flat, too.

 

Perhaps it's more because people aren't killing/abusing them quite so much.  Nah, it's got to be because the zealots need something to cling to.

 

Yeah, it's not that they try to be "normal" because it's a hell of alot easier to go along to get along.  Nah, one day they just decide to "change" because they're just not having the success in their sex life that they'd expected.  And you and the rest of the zealots wonder why people make fun of you.

 

I guess the queers in the Animal Kingdom just need some unforseen higher power to worship so they can get with the program, too.  Perhaps "Mother NARTH" will hook them up.

846991[/snapback]

 

You know it's funny how you point to Catholics as hypocrites, and yet you don't mind proclaiming how people who push their views on others are so wrong, yet you somehow find that mental loophole where you are exempt.

 

You won't look at all the evidence because somehow you have all the answers and push your views on others. Just admit your hypocrisy and how it burns up inside you then make an intelligent comment.

[mike1011]

I am not sure what you think induction means, but scholastics accepted as science the knowledge that precipitated from necessary truths derived from the syllogism.

C'mon now. Doctinal?  I am pretty sure that Aquinas put proof number 5 last because it was the weakest of the arguments.

 

Let's start with some clarifications of words and terms:

 

Scire in latin means to know, the word science comes from the latin word for knowledge. Science means true knowledge according to principles of thought. Perennially science means just thought: true and certain knowledge based on principles. Experimental sciences have true and certain knowledge of specifics, but their application is in the realm of theory. Experimental sciences are based on methodology and experimentation based on hypothesii and theorems. I use science in the classic terminology. The etymological meaning of science backs up the traditional use. Modernity usurped the word science into a quagmire of meanings.

 

Induction is the use of logic whereby someone looks at specifics and comes to universal conclusions such as looking at silver, brass, etc. and coming up with the universal idea of metal. Deduction is taking the universal and applying it to the specific, like discovering titanium and deductively determining it's a metal. If you don't have the time to look up all this fun stuff take this at face knowledge because I used to teach philosophy (but discovered the lucrative nature of real estate LOL).

 

In Scholasticism what is last is the most important, so rather than think it's least important it's most important. So proof #5 he finds, and so do I, very solid logic proof of God.

 

This is a far cry from what is modernly understood as intelligent design theory.

 

Modernity has differing views on what it is, the conclusion though is the same, namely, all things are made with the intelligence which is universal in scope and is called God. The neo-scholastic revival in Louvain, Belgium developed Deistic evolution; it is most commonly understood in Protestant terms today whereby the world is made in 6 days etc. but that is very narrow of examining ID.

 

Scotus if he believed in teleology it is weak in his system, but he makes no intelligent design arguments, but focuses on cognition rather than design. He is about as close to a nominalist as you can be, but does hold that there is a bare, common nature.

 

Scotus believed very much in teleological principles. He does make his proofs of God based on reason, and I never said he believed in ID as much as he believed in the final cause (analogous in application to ID) which is God which is demonstrative. Here's Stanford University's overview of Scotus in case you want a refresher. I don't have time to write his works: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/duns-scotus/

 

 

What I am unconvinced about is that Aquinas believed in what is modernly called Intelligent Design. His final cause argument doesn't fit well with the modern framework.

 

Let me say that what is commonly labeled ID has a myriad of possibilities, and the most common today is the fundamentalist "God made the world in 6 days" thing. In such a case yes you are right. But I don't think it can span such a narrow road. Msgr. Charles Glenn wrote on ID back in the 40's using Greeks and Scholastics as his argumentation (his book is called Apologetics), and so did Garrigou-Lagrange in the 50's.

 

Let's start on what we think ID is and go from there. I'm actually enjoying this conversation.

[Alaska Darin]

You know it's funny how you point to Catholics as hypocrites, and yet you don't mind proclaiming how people who push their views on others are so wrong, yet you somehow find that mental loophole where you are exempt.

 

You won't look at all the evidence because somehow you have all the answers and push your views on others. Just admit your hypocrisy and how it burns up inside you then make an intelligent comment.

847032[/snapback]

Which view am I pushing, Judas? The idea that all men are created equal? Yeah, I hate that one too. How 'bout "judge not, lest ye be judged?" You clowns think that you're somehow going to beat down homosexuality when you can't keep your indoctrinated, certified and stamped "leadership" from raping little boys? Yet I'm a hypocrite?

 

Freedom is only that when it applies to the minority, not just the heterosexual zealots and the single religion they pander to. You want to call that hypocrisy? That reflects a hell of alot more on you than it does me.

[Chilly]

I love how you intelligent design supporters do whatever you can to redefine science

[Chilly]

Okay, it may be me being a bit groggy this morning, but you are claiming there is no evolutionary reason for homoesexuals.  Correct?  If so, what would be the ID explanation for homosexuals and who designed them?

846390[/snapback]

 

Of course, I have actually heard of a evolutionary explanation. Homosexuality behaviors become more prominent when a species is starting to get overpopulated.

 

Couldn't be though, God didn't design it that way.

 

That another judgement, spirtual guy?

846791[/snapback]

 

Read all of this threads, and you'll notice that he:

 

- Judges other people all the time

- Gambles like crazy

- Doesn't go to church

[Bungee Jumper]

I love how you intelligent design supporters do whatever you can to redefine science

847110[/snapback]

 

But...but...but...the state of Kansas defined it! It's not them doing it!

[Simon]

Gay people aren't born that way. There is no evidence to assert this. You have random hypothesii for their belief, but it is contrary to all evidence.

 

Actually several scientists have been able to succesfully alter a single DNA strand in order to turn animals from heterosexual to homosexual. Additionally, studies of brain formations as well as chromosomes have hinted toward homosexuality stemming from prenatal conditions. So the ONLY evidence in existence points toward homosexuality primarily being predetermined. But you probably aren't allowed to read or discuss fact-based scientific research down there on the Nicolosi cult compound as truth and reality would undoubtedly interfere with the agendas of your masters. So keep spouting your pea-brained, closed-minded, spoon-fed, dogmatic propoganda while you make a fool of yourself by accusing others of hypocrisy.

[/dev/null]

Actually several scientists have been able to succesfully alter a single DNA strand in order to turn animals from heterosexual to homosexual. Additionally, studies of brain formations as well as chromosomes have hinted toward homosexuality stemming from prenatal conditions. So the ONLY evidence in existence points toward homosexuality primarily being predetermined. But you probably aren't allowed to read or discuss fact-based scientific research down there on the Nicolosi cult compound as truth and reality would undoubtedly interfere with the agendas of your masters. So keep spouting your pea-brained, closed-minded, spoon-fed, dogmatic propoganda while you make a fool of yourself by accusing others of hypocrisy.    

847138[/snapback]

How did they judge the animal was homosexual?

Did they genetically alter a living animal who then became straight?

Did they genetically alter in utero? If so how did they know the animal was homosexual

 

Not trying to discredit you, just wondering how the test was done. I've known gay/bi's who said they knew all their life and others who said they didn't start until their heterosexual partner talked them into a 3 way

[daquixers_is_back]

Actually several scientists have been able to succesfully alter a single DNA strand in order to turn animals from heterosexual to homosexual. Additionally, studies of brain formations as well as chromosomes have hinted toward homosexuality stemming from prenatal conditions. So the ONLY evidence in existence points toward homosexuality primarily being predetermined.

847138[/snapback]

 

At this risk of having my head bitten off, I ask a question. I brought this question up to my mother, who is an neurological tech, (along with evidence you presented) and she said that it is definately interesting. But then she said: "In identical twins, they both have identical chromosomes and DNA. Yet if one identical twin turns out to be gay, there is only a 10% chance of the other twin turning gay (facts from another study that was done). Therefore Im not sure whether that (animal) study translates well into human picture." Just looking for your thoughts on that.

[mike1011]

Which view am I pushing, Judas?  The idea that all men are created equal?  Yeah, I hate that one too.  How 'bout "judge not, lest ye be judged?"  You clowns think that you're somehow going to beat down homosexuality when you can't keep your indoctrinated, certified and stamped "leadership" from raping little boys?  Yet I'm a hypocrite? 

 

Freedom is only that when it applies to the minority, not just the heterosexual zealots and the single religion they pander to.  You want to call that hypocrisy?  That reflects a hell of alot more on you than it does me.

847094[/snapback]

 

Do you see what I mean? You cannot think straight, yet you picture yourself as some sort of luminary. Guess what genius, you need to think before you put your ideas into public exposure of your vast ignorance, bias, and false perspectives.

 

Do you really think judge not lest ye be judged means we can't judge actions? That statement in context states we can't judge intentions unless the person exposes their malice. Your malice in the face of truth is stifling. Yet you claim (not I) that you don't want to push your ideas on others. I never said that because I believe truth needs a voice. You see you believe that too, but when pushed you deny it. That's hypocritical.

 

You're cheapshot about homosexual priest only exposes your hypocrisy even further. What does the Catholic Church say about homosexuality? It does not condone it, and asks homosexuals to reconsider their lifestyle in a way that is dignified to the body God gave them. Most acts by priests are not child molesters Ignoramus, they are homosexual acts with young men 14 years old and older over 80% of the time. Somehow you confine this to child rape, when in fact it's homosexual sex. Don't let that bother your perverted sense of justice and hypocrisy.

 

Where's your bashing of teacher's unions, rabbis, Protestant ministers, college professors who all have a higher rate of sexual abuse with minors? You have an agenda to fulfill as a disgruntled ignorant Catholic. You are filling your quota quite well.

 

Heterosexual zealots? What is that supposed to mean? Oh that's right freedom of speech for everyone except those people who are religious. You push freedom, not pushing your views on others, and that's all you do for the years you push this board. We've been at this before when I exposed your hypocrisy with another screen name before I lost my email address for lack of use. You are clueless, and people of your disposition will end up without a sane environment for their children because they have denied looking at all the facts as they believe the world should be open-minded, except when they have a religious name attached to their beliefs. Not only is that a priori false, but your reasoning is that of a 4 year old, "Mom, our family sticks because Uncle Johnny is mean so I don't want to be an American like he is or part of the family." That exactly what you do when you point the finger at Catholics who fight against homosexuality and sexual predators.

[mike1011]

Actually several scientists have been able to succesfully alter a single DNA strand in order to turn animals from heterosexual to homosexual. Additionally, studies of brain formations as well as chromosomes have hinted toward homosexuality stemming from prenatal conditions. So the ONLY evidence in existence points toward homosexuality primarily being predetermined. But you probably aren't allowed to read or discuss fact-based scientific research down there on the Nicolosi cult compound as truth and reality would undoubtedly interfere with the agendas of your masters. So keep spouting your pea-brained, closed-minded, spoon-fed, dogmatic propoganda while you make a fool of yourself by accusing others of hypocrisy.    

847138[/snapback]

 

Care to share this study? I have seen not one scientific evidence for it. Just hypothesii that such a position can be found.

 

Such a position by the medical community has not found such a strand of DNA. I have seen the studies you discuss, they are not based on any real studies that have been reviewed.

 

Dr. Nicolosi, as a matter of fact, has helped hundreds of homosexuals without any DNA changes or mutations. As he said you never see the testimonials in the media:

 

"Hi my name is Steve. I was gay, and realized it was a lie. Here is my wife, my 4 kids and I'm happy."

 

Can you show where those studies, which are not provided by Nicolosi but by other sources, are false? Or do you think you can use labels like closed-minded when you are in fact closed minded to the facts that there is no strand, chemical, etc. to show any material defects to transform heterosexuals or homosexuals. I provided a website with 3rd party unbiased information, yet you claim I'm the one closed-minded.

 

A find closed-mindedness a funny paradigm: every is closed-minded except yourself when you disagree with someone else. I've never pushed the closed-minded mantra on anyone who never pushed it themselves for others. Why not open your mind to other possibilities or would that hurt your dogma of liberal inconsistencies?

[mike1011]

I love how you intelligent design supporters do whatever you can to redefine science

847110[/snapback]

 

Sadly not only are your wrong, but you relegate etymology into your sphere of understanding, not vice versa.

 

Care to show me where I'm wrong? Because I can show you where you are. Science was re-defined by experimental sciences as "SCIENCE". Show me the historical belief in your claim. You'll have a problem right before 1800 AD until the beginning of civilization.

 

I have thousands of years backing up the (notice the wording) perennial definition, etymology, philology, and common usage for thousands of years. You have your ignorance and a re-defining of a word for the past 200 years. Did you know also that psychology was actually a branch of epistemology before Fraud and his posterity took the word by redefining it.

 

But I'm the revisionist

[Chilly]

Sadly not only are your wrong, but you relegate etymology into your sphere of understanding, not vice versa.

 

Care to show me where I'm wrong? Because I can show you where you are. Science was re-defined by experimental sciences as "SCIENCE". Show me the historical belief in your claim. You'll have a problem right before 1800 AD until the beginning of civilization.

 

I have thousands of years backing up the (notice the wording) perennial definition, etymology, philology, and common usage for thousands of years. You have your ignorance and a re-defining of a word for the past 200 years. Did you know also that psychology was actually a branch of epistemology before Fraud and his posterity took the word by redefining it.

 

But I'm the revisionist 

847240[/snapback]

 

Yeah, because the pre-1800s definition is just SO relevant in the year 2006.

[Alaska Darin]

Do you see what I mean? You cannot think straight, yet you picture yourself as some sort of luminary. Guess what genius, you need to think before you put your ideas into public exposure of your vast ignorance, bias, and false perspectives.

Dude, if you were any more of a parody you'd be your own television show.

Do you really think judge not lest ye be judged means we can't judge actions? That statement in context states we can't judge intentions unless the person exposes their malice. Your malice in the face of truth is stifling. Yet you claim (not I) that you don't want to push your ideas on others. I never said that because I believe truth needs a voice. You see you believe that too, but when pushed you deny it. That's hypocritical.

Your "truth" is nothing more than than the regurgitated bile of organized religion that has literally kept humanity at war against some faceless boogieman for our entire existance.

You're cheapshot about homosexual priest only exposes your hypocrisy even further. What does the Catholic Church say about homosexuality? It does not condone it, and asks homosexuals to reconsider their lifestyle in a way that is dignified to the body God gave them. Most acts by priests are not child molesters Ignoramus, they are homosexual acts with young men 14 years old and older over 80% of the time. Somehow you confine this to child rape, when in fact it's homosexual sex. Don't let that bother your perverted sense of justice and hypocrisy.

That paragraph is so awesome I don't even need to respond to it.

Where's your bashing of teacher's unions, rabbis, Protestant ministers, college professors who all have a higher rate of sexual abuse with minors? You have an agenda to fulfill as a disgruntled ignorant Catholic. You are filling your quota quite well.

You're right. There's no way I'd bash any of those others if they had a systematic coverup while abusing children. I'd certainly leave them alone because of my overt anti-Catholic agenda - because I'm alot like YOU. [/sarcasm]

Heterosexual zealots? What is that supposed to mean? Oh that's right freedom of speech for everyone except those people who are religious. You push freedom, not pushing your views on others, and that's all you do for the years you push this board. We've been at this before when I exposed your hypocrisy with another screen name before I lost my email address for lack of use. You are clueless, and people of your disposition will end up without a sane environment for their children because they have denied looking at all the facts as they believe the world should be open-minded, except when they have a religious name attached to their beliefs.

You're right. That argument has plenty of legs. Religion has almost no voice in the world. The Catholics don't have their own country and the annointing of their spiritual guide after the death of his predecessor didn't even make the news! The Jews have no place to go because the world won't step in and find them a decent piece of real estate to set down roots. The Muslims can't even get their religion accepted to the point where they can have forced organized prayer at the national level.

 

Oh, we're talking about removing really important symbolism like "In God We Trust" and the all important "Daily Prayer" because you zealots can't get as much recruiting done on the public stage without some mind control. That'll make it a hell of alot harder to steal from the poor to build some glorius temple for your "leadership" to rape "little" (this apparently means under the age of 14 when the zealots are defending child rape) boys.

 

You people are rich. You play the same arguments for yourselves that you use when you describe the faceless demons like "queers" and "blacks". The best part is you're not even smart enough to realize you're doing it.

Not only is that a priori false, but your reasoning is that of a 4 year old, "Mom, our family sticks because Uncle Johnny is mean so I don't want to be an American like he is or part of the family." That exactly what you do when you point the finger at Catholics who fight against homosexuality and sexual predators.

847226[/snapback]

Yeah, you're really doing a service for America and the world. Good luck stamping out homosexuality with your ignorance. Maybe the next prayer meeting will do the trick.

 

I'll believe the Catholics are serious about fighting sexual predators when they start doing something about their own WITHOUT a camera having to be involved.

[Simon]

How did they judge the animal was homosexual?

Did they genetically alter a living animal who then became straight?

Did they genetically alter in utero? If so how did they know the animal was homosexual

 

Thye transplated a DNA strand into previously "normal" mature male flies and afterwards they were suddenly all grouped together trying to bugger each other.

Then somebody else altered a strand in a female fly and afterwards it began exhibiting male mating rituals instead of typical female rituals.

 

In identical twins, they both have identical chromosomes and DNA. Yet if one identical twin turns out to be gay, there is only a 10% chance of the other twin turning gay

I've seen a few studies where they tried to track both fraternal and identical twins and the results I saw were more in the 40-60% range. However it's hard to put much stock in these because from what I understand these studies were poorly done in that they fail to account for a lot of variables which could have skewed the results.

 

Care to share this study? I have seen not one scientific evidence for it. Just hypothesii that such a position can be found........I provided a website with 3rd party unbiased information, yet you claim I'm the one closed-minded.

I'm sure your masters have brainwashed you into believing that when somebody won't engage you in debate it's because they are incapable of doing so. But you can rest assuredly that I am one of the many who won't engage you in debate because I have no interest in wasting my time conversing with an indoctrinated automaton.

Now run along before you're late for self-flagellation hour in bunker #3.