A Tripolation

I've always wondered why nuclear energy isn't more actively pursued. I, for one, fear the waste and potential meltdown, but are those valid concerns?

Well padren, I was assuming that they bought the full auto version of the weapons illegally. I guess I wasn't thinking clearly when I read the part about their weapons being returned. See...you make a very good point in that gun laws are too lax. They are. But should we ban the selling of semi-auto weapons just because they can be modified? People that want auto weapons will STILL figure out a way to find one. I must say, when I acquire enough money, I plan on purchasing some very deadly firearms...but just in case of an apocalyptic situation or for infected people/zombies <no...really>

I like how you all use the word "base" and then can get away with mass generalizations... But, evidence based rationale is not limited to science and maths and what seems to be valuable here on this forum. Bascule...say that 38% of a field was afflicted with Blackshank, but it was the only available lot. Should you plow a new field and cut back on corn? But doing so would then create a shortage of sileage for cattle...and if the summer is particularly nasty, then you won't have enough hay. And with no sileage reserve, most of your cattle will die, and you'll have to sell them off, leaving no revenue for NEXT YEAR's procurement of equipment and seeds and such. What should you do about that blackshank? Grow a GE-hybrid of tobacco that is resistant? Oh...but it doesn't do so well in this climate. And the leaves are harder to cure out. And the pH of the soil isn't right...so now you have to get some lime and potash...but then that means you're going to have to cut back on Sudex hay, leaving NO reserves of hay at all. THAT'S the kind of "evidence-based reasoning" that many farmers (who are overwhelmingly conservative) have to deal with. Just because liberals statistically tend to have more "book smarts" than conservatives does not make them any more adept at rational reasoning. Edit** I just noticed how off topic this is Sorry iNow.

And they ALL have the authority to show the Olympics?

I guess it's just because I'm the real passive sort. I mean, they're not invoking emminent domain and bulldozing his house like they did to those peopel in China...It's just that 5 channels out of 200 on satellite or 50 on the most basic of cable (not to mention internet TV) won't be available for one week. I'm assuming when you say "terrestial" channels, you're talking of the major networks? Like the equivalent to the US's ABC, NBC, CBS such and such? And in Britian, they will ALL show the Olympics? Over here, only one channel has that privelege and they pay handsomely for it. And to compensate for that, the other channels will usually play awesome movies and such to try and get as much of an audience as they can...but that's not how it works over there?

When nothing is on TV, I play Halo. I study. I do my homework. Sometimes I get caught up on some intern-ish stuff I'm doing. I watch movies, go out with friends, and if I had a lady-friend, I might spend some time with her. There is a plethora of things going on besides what's on the TV. I'm not saying the converage is ridiculous (it is), I'm saying that you really need to lighten up and let other people show off their life work for one week every four years! Is that too much to ask for?

Yes...yes it is.

OH NO!! One week-long event occupying my TV channels!!! Run for the hills!! I mean really. I pretty much hate the Olympics too, but I'm not going to complain about them doing it for a week every four freakin' years. Have some modicum of respect for your fellow humans and their aspirations.

Only if you define chance as "reading up on the various philospophies of life and after-life and making an educated assumption from there, without asserting complete metaphysical certitude as some belief/non-belief systems do". Anyways, an issue you might could help me with iNow. Where does the ORIGIN of dualism come from? How does evolution explain WHY we assign causes to everything? Basically, how did these neurocortical mechanisms evolve in the first place? You might have already answered this or linked to it (LOTS of info in here ) and if you did, a simple post # would suffice as a reply.

Yep, that's the one. And guys like that are PRECISELY the reason that a ban on guns would do mroe harm than good. Those guys BOUGHT their weapons illegally, so what effect would a ban have on them? Like they care about law. Thanks Syntho-Sis.

Yeah...and committing a crime with an assault rifle would probably be MUCH more likely to attract the attention of every cop within a 25 mile radius...not to mention swat teams and the such. Wasn't there one bank robbery in NY where the bad guys just literally came out and blew the cops away because they had high powered weapons and body armor? Im pretty sure a sniper still put them down...but does anyone know what I'm thinking of? I may have the details a bit off. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I agree, the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution is one of the best, but, it's not the only argument (as has been stated already). Yeah, since guns are harder to procure and traffic, then that just means they would be more expensive and profitable than other black market items. But there will ALWAYS be a market for illegal items. I know I would be part of that market if they ever decided to outlaw guns. How else am I supposed to fight the zombies/aliens/infected people?? With a knife? Don't think so.

Ohhhhhhh, ok. I thought you HAD an MBA and were wondering if you could get a PhD in an Engineering field with no previous experience. This is much better. I'm not too sure about the graduate program hierarchy. I always thought you needed to get a Masters before you could get a PhD, but I'm not so sure now. Based on my limited knowledge, I would get my Master's in Comp. Eng. and then get the MBA. That way, you can always return for your PhD. ajb (being a soon graduated-grad student himself) should be able to answer a lot more than I can. Good luck, friend.

My sincere apologies, bascule.

Maybe they are gauging the potential revenue the sight could have? There are no advertisements? *Checks* Holy crap...they don't...well...I have no idea

Engineering and Computer Engineering are two wholly different things, stranger. And you can't just jump into a graduate program in Engineering, or rather, most people couldn't. You would need a very strong background in Newtonian physics, control systems, logic systems, fluid mechanics and many areas of math. And that's just the general stuff all engineering majors do. The specialized stuff is even crazier. I'm not trying to deride your major, but I really don't think MBAs cover this stuff. Apologies if they do. And to immediately jump into a Doctoral program in Computer Engineering with little background in computer science or engineering would be practically unheard of. But you should pursue whatever interests you may have. Heck, I may be wrong about all of this Hopefully I've helped some

Your country...forces you to watch the Olympics or something? I don't see how them competing in sports impacts you in any way, shape, or form.

Yeah, our gun laws are fairly lax now. It is easy for "criminals" to get guns and commit crimes with them. Do I think a ban on guns us the way to go? Hell no. And this opinion is based on a little piece of history called "Prohibition" where they outlawed alcohol. People wanted a drink, bad people saw a market, and thus, the bad people grew in power, and people were still getting drunk. So...bad people would still seek guns, good people wouldn't have any, more "bad" people would sell guns to the really bad people, and guns would still be used to commit crimes. A ban does nothing. And I partially agree with Bascule. I see no immediate threat from Obama on gun ownership. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yeah...I've always wondered about that. Maybe because you can do the same thing with a pistol that you can do with an AK-47? And the pistol is easier to find and buy, and prob cheaper? Those might be the reasons.

Of course not, O' Lord of Darkness. Lemme try and think of something to dispute. BTW, I never used the Appeal to Emotion fallacy in arguments against you, just to answer that question.

Well, then you could say the entire world influenced my decision. I don't really think that's a fair claim to make. Do you? I like to believe I made my own decision, predisposition be damned! And thank you for acknowledging your minor error JillSwift I sincerely appreciate it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Long story short --> Christianity has the most historicity attached to it. The New Testament has some of the most pure sentiments of love in it. For all the equations I've learned...all the psycholohy, sociology, science, math, astronomy, chemistry, statics...everything I've learned, nothing can explain what I know to be true with all my heart. I believe in souls...I don't see personalities arising simply from chemical interactions within our brain (I know they do, that just doesn't seem like it explains love to me). It's basically because I need it to be true. While agnosticism certainly makes sense to me (atheism seems pretentious to me, no offence), I just don't believe that this is all there is to life. There has to be more, and I find it arrogant that we humans think that we can percieve and understand all in the universe. I think everything has a purpose, and that there is a single cause. There's a lot of emotional reasons I believe too, but I won't get into that Sorry about the off-topic-ness iNow, I was just answering his question. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged And that is a 100% fact? There is no disputing that?

Quick Reply: Because my community is full of people that actually take the Old Testament literally. And were horrible represenations of the kindness that Christ so desperately wanted humanity to show. If anything, they dod more to drive me away from Christianity than to influence me to become Christian.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I don't believe the way I do because of my community, nor my family. I've READ parts of the Apocrypha, Koran, and, of course, the Torah. I FOUND my beliefs. Sure, I was raised a Christian, but my parents always encouraged me to seek truths in my own way. As it stands now, I'm a deist that believes in a man called Jesus. But proclivity can't be the thow-away explanation for all belief can it? That's my point. It doesn't seem to me that evolutionary by-products can be considered the reason for everyone that chooses to belive in a God. Take me for example. I've got a fair amount of knowledge in maths and science, much more so than the average person, but yet, I CHOOSE to believe in an irrational entity. How does a proclivity for belief factor into that at all??

That may very well be the case, but that is not the point. The point is "who are you to tell two adults that love each other that they can't be together". And this argument is taken directly from the proponents of SSM. It doesn't matter if you think it wouldn't be wise for them to do it. It's their life, not yours, and they can make their own decisions as legal adults. I don't see why the philosophy of SSM can't be used on incestuous marriage as well. Seems like blatant hypocrisy to me.

Nor am I. You asked for an example, I gave you one. I rendered your premise false. As such, I've proven my point. Take care now.

lol yeah. Hey, how about where the leader of the left wing airs a commercial that twists the truth? Please tell me you've seen this before. And yes, Johnson was a democrat, and this one commercial totally screwed his opponent over.

Many hetero/homo relationships are verbally abusive, emotionally damaging and flat-out unhealthy as well...but you are in support of those so I don't see how that support wouldn't apply here *I'm not saying you support abusive relationships. I'm saying you support relationships, some of which are abusive, and that should apply here as well*