Dak

Then what's the difference between neutral and non-neutral evolution? Evolution 'drives' a general tendancy towards an increase in ability to pass the shannon-filter. Evolution therefore has a direction/is a driving force. Terms such as 'increase in fitness' and 'change in allele frequency' over time kinda hightlight the fact that evolution is pushing towards an outcome/one of a limited set of outcomes. [edit]has non-base-chance tendancies towards different outcomes might be a better way of describing it? the outcomes with higher tendancies would be the 'direction'[/edit] Be careful we don't end up having a 20-page semantic argument: 'direction' is metophorical: there is no 'arrow', which is what i was trying to avoid implying by pointing out it's not pre-determined; there is no 'goal', but there is a 'direction'. metaphorically speaking.

evolution does have a direction. it's hard to be a driving force without a direction (not a pre-determined one, granted, but evolution still drives change towards a certain end). I always assumed that evolutionary dead-ends were pretty much as JHAQ stated; where there is not only no advantage, but a specific disadvantage, to any change, resulting in evolution maintaining the status quo and preventing any further change. But that was just an assumption.

OK, please be gentle, i'm really not good at physics. As i understand it, there's 3 forces: strong, electroweak, and gravity. Other forces, such as magentism, can be described in terms of electroweak (?); i.e., it's not a unique force, rather a different incarnation of electroweak, or something like that. heat is not a unique force, it's just an incarnation of movement (i.e., the amount of movement of the molecules). But, i can't think of what motion is. it's clearly an energy, as it can be converted to/fro the other energies, so if it weren't an energy it'd break the first law; but, i can't see how it could be an arrangement of strong, electroweak and/or gravity. I'll admit i'm not 100% sure what strong and electroweak are So, yeah, what's motion wrt energy please?

I'm not neccesarily for abolishing marriage per se, just for abolishing the need for the state to sanction marriages. alternatively: that all voluntary marriages are automatically state-sanctioned? The whole 'gay marriage/domestic partnerships' thing is a step in the right direction, but the fundamental problem is that the state feels that it can refuse to support certain marriages -- so, rather than the state saying 'ok, now we approve of gay marriage' i think it should say 'ok, now we dont ask wether we approve or not, we simply accommodate every 'domestic arrangement' that tax paying citizens have'. So, i guess that could actually be viewed as the polar opposite of abolishing marraige, sorry if that confused you (and i still think that if some strait people really feel the need to not share the name, they should be called civil unions) maybe charge, say, $200 for a marriage with the first one for free? i.e., the more often you get married, the more expensive it'll be, whilst still allowing everyone to marry 'the one' for free (or, at least the first one). plus it'd pay for the paperwork?

Well, I agree with you, too, then Apart from the fact that it'd remove the states power to discriminate, and thus fix alot of problems. Okay, ideally you'd self-identify as married, and any accomodations that needed to be made would be made. Just wrt gays and without getting rid of marriage, ideally you'd have what you have atm in washington, tho i'll admit i'd prefer them to be called marriages, but it's really not a problem either way as long as they're identical (which is all i've been trying to argue in this thread)

Well, would a same-sex marriage be recognised in different states? Iirc, some (most?) states specifically have laws against same-sex marriages? If they would be recognized, then yeah, i guess calling it something different has genuinely bad effects. (the thread started with a suggestion that other states adopt washington's model; i suppose the federal government adopting it, or simply allowing gay marriage, would fix that problem) Nah, if you want to make your case, you're going to have to pick one of the 1,138 marriage entitlements that domestic partners don't get from one of your sources: If i'm reading it right, gay domestic partners are entitled to federal benifits in washington, making it more 'marriage in all but name' than massachusetts' gay 'marriage'. You too. I think we probably both have the same views on this -- i.e., the way i'd actually do it is to remove the need for the state to approve of marriage -- if any people want to register as married they can, at which point any accomodations that need to be made by the state (right to make medical desizisions if you're incapasitated, inheritance law, etc) are made. end of problem. I still wouldn't mind if people wanted to call them 'civil unions' tho

Aide memouirs from someone who can't spell: If an 'o' comes loose, it might fall off and get lost punctuation: the apostrophy replaces something that isn't there. hence, you're == you are. your is the other one (i.e., possessive). they're == they are. their and there I just remember i suppose. 'which' allways follows a comma (?) The 'wether' homonyms bug me. are we talking wether tis nobler, or wether tis sunny?

we're talking about DPs in washington And i'm a bit tired, so 'essentially' just snuck it's way in there for no reason whatsoever. as i read it, in washington, DPs have the same status as marriage. If anyone knows of any differences (espescially iNow) feel free to share. --- actually, to clarify: yes, elsewhere, i'm sure refusing to call gay marriages marriages could have some actual legal ramifications that make the gay 'not-marriages' genuinely lesser, and thus discriminatory

well, in washington state, it is! from the institution that, for better or worse, it has been desided is an opposite-sex partners only affair. Kinda makes sense, at least they have their own version: Justify the bit i emphasized above. And 'subclass' while we're at it. why must DPs be a lesser subclass of marriage, and not an equivelent alternative? Espescially as they appear to be objectively indistinguishable in all but name. Your logic appears to be: 1/ I am considering DPs to be lesser than marriages 2/ therefore it's bigoted I disagree with 1, essentially. From the article linked in the OP, in washington both of those were already afforded to gay 'domestic partnerships', with the recent legislation adding more rights to bring domestic partnerships up to essentially the same status as marriages, in all but name.

Or called differently. What, objectively, is the difference between the gays' 'domestic partnership' and the straits' 'marriage'? Again, how is calling it other than marriage 'harming' gays? And the reasoning need not be (tho admittedly probably is) religious btw, so appeals to secularism/establishment clause don't neccesarily hold. And I don't think that the constitution requires all marriages be called marriages any more than it forbids it: give me a relevant, secular justification why gay marriage is required to be called marriage (bearing in mind equal != identical). At the very least, it cuts off a potential way of abusing the Est. Clause to overthrow the legislature by claiming that, due to the traditional link between marriage and religion, the state should keep its nose out. how is it treating them implicitly as a subclass? btw, 'i dont see how' != 'i dont believe'. 'ignorance is not a valid form of argumentation' would have been more apt, but i was kinda thinking you'd perhaps clarify how, exactly, calling it 'domestic partnership' or whatever is treating them as inferior.

yeah, well this is where 'i just don't care' comes in: they're not, in effect, being treated differently, just called a different name. Why indeed: but, what is actual equality? is it totally favouring the gays, or is it being fair to gays whilst making a small concession to people who feel that the 'sanctity' of 'their thing' is being challenged? calling it by a different name is a small thing, that makes no real difference to gays, but placates some people by making them feel that 'their thing' isn't being screwed with (whilst the gays get a carbon-copy of said thing anyway). Like i said, if you want equality, why would you totally favour the gays over the bigots? is it just because you don't like bigots, or is there a legitimate, relevent, secular reason why people in an (alleged) democracy shouldn't have their needs and desires pandered to if doing so doesn't have any real effect on anyone else? So, what, I'm an ignorant bigot? But it's just a name. I don't see how it's treating people as inferior?

So? While it is, technically, discriminatory (by definition), in a world where lezbians are 'correctively raped', gay men are beaten to death, and just 30 years ago it was a prison-able offence to be gay, having to use a longer, more cumbersome name for their marriage should be an easily tolerable discrimination. Anyway, there's no actual law stating that you can't call it marriage. imo, best bet now is not to force anything on anyone, just let peoples' natural lazyness lead them to abandon 'domestic partnership' in favour of 'marriage'. Of whom there are a lot. Let them have their semantics, that they may pretend it's not happening, Espescially if it helps things actually progress. Sounds fair to me. Black people get what they want (equal rights), whilst other people get the edge taken off of it by calling it a different name. Everybody wins. Why should the needs of gay people be prioritized over those of bigots? Or vice-a-versa? This way, some homosexuals have to be slightly annoyed at the different name, whilst some heterosexuals have to be slightly annoyed at the fact that it's now a bit harder to pretend homosexuals don't exist; it seems to be the absolute minimum overall annoyance, which would, by definition, be 'fair'. Unless you want to prioritize the gay people over the whiney faggots, and set everything up for them? Why, if everyone's equal, would you do that? Surely, in the interests of not being hypocrites, we must accept that the whiney faggots are real people too even tho we don't like them and think that they should be shot, and that they have equal expectations to have the country set up in their benifit, and with a right to expect slight concessions from other people if it makes them much happier? (genuine question)

so... domestic partnership is marriage in all but name? pretty much every single argument against gay marriage is still 'valid' then (well... of the same validity as before, at any rate).

Refusing to hit the return key doesn't actually make it all one paragraph. Cheater

Assuming an equal chance of being the one with borked kidneys or the kidnapped one, yes, because you down-grade a 1/x chance of dying into a 2/x chance of being inconvienienced for 9 months (tho some kind of opt-in system would be more moral imo). This breaks the analogy tho -- women have 0% chance of being the foetus, and a non-0% chance of being the 'bystander'. IIRC, one in three foetuses naturally miscarry, which is way above the abortion rate anyway. You'd think that people would address the natural holocaust before the occasional artificial murder or two.

By the time it would (statistically) have happened, evolution would probably have caused at least one of the alleles to have dropped out of the population, making an exact duplicate impossibleish. (OK, with mutation you could regain the allele, but it's still pretty unlikely).

nah fair one. i've got some gum, but don't want to use it for some reason. i'm gonna try not to have any niquotine, but if i fail i'm gonna fail by caving in to gum, not fags.

so, 'barrack the majick negro' == 'barrack the majick nigger' in the US?

hmm... in the uk, 'nigger' is the rude version of 'negro', which is a somewhat dry technical term. wierd. makes the question different from a UK perspective

^yeah, me too. i think i'm gonna have a pouch of drum in my pocket at all times, just to calm me down aah, but i fully intend to be hung-over as shite tomorrow, and don't feel like adding to my woes by not smoking also, to combat 'the fear' i'm gonna smoke as much as i want on the 1st of each month, so i can chill out and not worry about 'never smoking again'. i recon i'll do that once then not bother again, but whatever psycological tricks work, eh?

the word 'negro' is offensive in america? if so, what do you use when talking about the negro race?

yah, me 2 after 12 years... when i wake up jan 2nd, no more smoking with u on the nervousness, i think it's possibly similar to 'the fear' of heroine withdraw... the thought of never having another fag is a tad scary, for some reason...

hmm... I wonder if PETA see the irony that they've 'cried wolf' and lied so much that now we're reluctant, even with video proof, to accept that animal cruelty is happening? (not saying you're wrong -- totally agree that animal welfare groups are unreliable sources) oh, just noticed: "Both Videos and Animal Cruelty Photos by Courtesy of PETA" hmm... iNow: guns represent an initial outlay, plus they're banned in china; anyway, we don't know how much profit these people are making per hide -- maybe a nickel per hide is a lot. ---------- I doubt they were their exact words, but maybe struggling means that the animal helps pull itself out of it's own hide? (one of the more disturbing things i've ever had to think :-/ )

the only elaboration i could find on the site is: no sources or anything. tbh, as these are apparently just common-or-garden workers doing this, i'd assume that it's being done in the overall easyest way -- i.e., it's probably either easyer to skin alive, or it's easyer to skin alive than to kill humanely then skin a corpse

no reason you couldn't sticky it in GD.