JillSwift

But... this is politics - all opinions head toward becoming assertions. Seriously, within politics the two are intertwined. "I prefer X" all to often gets an addendum: "And you should, too."

Embarrassingly, I missed where Bear's Key mentioned greed as a moral issue,and that changes things a good bit. My answer is based on the fact I view greed and altruism not as attitudes or morals, but as tools. It's then morality that defines when they are used. I happen to agree that greediness is easily abused - and that hanging on to resources to the exclusion of the well being and survival of others is reprehensible, as I have empathy and I want those around me to have opportunity for contentment as much as I wish to have that opportunity. However, we also use greed (as a tool) to our personal benefit without crossing a moral line. Saving money, storing more food than you need, buying land, etc. It's both part of survival and reaching for that contented life. Which is why I see any healthy society using facets of both socialist and capitalist ideas.

Hehehe. I'm waiting on a "that's what she said" joke.

So, you're saying that taking all the resources you can to ensure you have access to them in the future is not a survival trait? Mind, survival isn't just response to immediate danger, it's a continuum of interplay between organism and environment. So, it's self preservation to doom others to the fire in order to be a survivor, it is also self preservation to horde food so that you'll be able to eat during the lean seasons. That does not mean you can't also survive the theater fire by pooling resources with others (we three can crash the locked door down!) as well as survive the lean season (We can hunt together and catch more food than the three of us will need!)

Ah, and that's just it, isn't it? Greed/selfishness is a survival trait, but so is social behavior and altruism. The isn't about whether altruism or greed, but when to use each and to what extent. ==

Can you point to a source where scientists have ever published anything making that claim?

If I may, iNow... The problem is what gets asserted but not discussed. As in: A: I like X, because of Y, Z and N. B: X is bad. A: Why is X bad? B: Because X is bad. A: You said that already. I think X is good because of Y, Z and N. Why do you think X is bad? B: I understand your Z, Y, and N. It's just that X is bad. A: ... *headdesk* Its something that happens in political and moral discussions quite a lot, because sometimes (especially in moral issues, of which politics is riddled) the person making the assertion hasn't the first clue why they have that opinion, but it's is a deeply held opinion none the less. In some cases, questioning the validity or reasoning of such a deeply held opinion really gets the opinion holder riled up emotionally. Sadly, this shuts discussion down. And, like iNow, I have no idea what to do when confronted by it, and it does seem contrary to a science forum's theme, even if it's not actually against the rules.

*does 'learned something new today' dance* This is cool. My father was a communications engineer for Mountain Bell, and he told me about the idea being kicked around of taking taking fiber down the last mile. One of the problems was the expense and inefficiency of amplification electronically (optical-electronic-optical, as Vic put it). Now that this idea seems to be coming to fruition, it's cool to hear about how that was overcome. ==

I have long been fascinated by sight. From the simple detection of light in a neurologically meaningful but simple way, to the complex perception of objects and space including objects and shapes never before experienced, to the fascinating and fun tricks of vision. I recently heard of a fascinating syndrome, common among the visually impared and blind, called Charles Bonnett syndrome. People experiencing Charles Bonnett syndrome hallucinate. It's not the psychotic dysphoric hallucinations that most people think of when they hear the word "hallucination", rather what they experience is a sort of "movie in the mind" where images of things, people, faces, etc. engage in mundane or repetitive activities. The person experiencing the hallucination will almost never recognize the people or places and things in the hallucination. What makes this most interesting is that there has been opportunity to have people experiencing Charles Bonnett syndrome hallucinations while in an FMRI. This has revealed some interesting aspects of how the brain perceives visual information. In looking around for more information, I fond this TED talk by Oliver Sacks, a man who deals with Charles Bonnett syndrome in his patients quite often. He explains this phenomenon and what it has taught us far better than I could: http://blog.ted.com/2009/09/what_hallucinat.php

ooh. So, let's see if I have this straight. The erbium ions in the silica fiber are excited by the pump laser, and decay when the signal photons hit, releasing their own photons in the process thus resulting in an essentially new signal. Am I badly off?

Oh, this is really intriguing. Where is the extra energy coming from?

I'd love to hear about that. Would you care to give an overview of the technology?

True, to a certain degree. Marriage has also been a matter of arrangement, often by nobles over their peasantry, certainly between noble families as matters of union and guaranteeing noble heirs, and also between families outside nobility as matters of business and union as the nobility faded. Marriages have been arranged in other cultures traditionally for much the same reasons. Marriage has only within the past 150 years or so become a matter of love. That change didn't come about as a matter of logical back-flips, either. So you're also correct on that. Things do change, though. Marriage among them. What benefit do married heterosexual couples bring to the country? Perpetuation of the species doesn't require marriage, so I don't think that counts. Well, we all aught do our best not to respond in kind when folks get emotional in their postings. People are human and make mistakes, that's inevitable. it's how we handle those mistakes that is the test of our worth, don't you think?

I'm not sure why that "perception" of fairness isn't enough - given that there is precedence against "separate but equal" in history, but there are other reasons, so here's one: Efficiency and stability. Duplicating all the laws and other structures in place is an expensive project, and one that includes many opportunity for "transcription errors" which could render the two systems unequal. Also, maintaining two sets of the same laws adds expense, time, and again provides many opportunity for a system drift that could make the two institutions become unequal over time. Contrast the addition of a single inclusive definition.

Maybe, but the question was about the Republican Party - who do seem to coddle the religious right, but that doesn't make the party religious in nature.

Let's see: cult –noun 1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies. Nope, not a religion or religious in nature. 2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult. It may fit this definition. But so would the Democratic party. 3. the object of such devotion. As above. 4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. As above 5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols. Nope. No rites, no sacred ideology. 6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. Again, not a religion. 7. the members of such a religion or sect. As above. 8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific. Nope, not a panacea sales machine either. So, I think a political party, no matter what its most extreme members are up to, would qualify as a cult unless it stopped being a political party first.

A future with same sex marriage would be essentially identical to now, except that gay couples are granted the same privileges for a committed relationship as straight couples are. Is there finincial benefit to subsidizing straight couples? Given that homosexuals exist and establish committed relationships now, just without being treated equally under the law for doing so, granting those privileges wouldn't change anything so far as "wasted" couples go. Just as granting those privileges to infertile or child-free by choice heterosexual couples changes nothing.

/me does Yay bum-wiggle happy-feets dance.

Do you happen to have a link to a story for that? I sure could use some happy news right about now.

Well, not as you phrased it. But neither am I all that far away: Were the issue of same sex marriage purely about secular and rational reasons, then and only then would discovering no reason to oppose gay marriage become a logical mandate to stop opposition. What I do recognize is that the issue of same sex marriage (which the posed question examines only in part) isn't about just the secular or reasonable. We're emotional beings. Nothing in society is ever just about the rational. Heck, quite often "rational" has nothing to do with it. That's why they offer chocolate and vanilla soft-serve at the 7-11.

Aww, come on. How can you possibly make that assertion? This thread was never intended to demonstrate any sort of logical mandate. Nor was it intended to offer support for a hierarchy of validity. If a conclusion has been made somewhere in this thread that there is a logical mandate of any sort, I'm afraid I missed it. Id' have to disagree with it anyway. This thread's question can examine only one thing, and that is demonstrating whether or not there is secular, rational reason to oppose gay marriage. Discovering that there are no secular, rational reasons can only lead us to conclude that there are only religious or irrational reasons. Oops! Looks like there can be no logical mandate as a conclusion! Despite there being no secular, rational reasons, there are still reasons! Oh my I guess that straw man deserved to die, anyway.

Suggest all y'like. Evidencing that, on the other hand, far more difficult. It's a delicate argument, as all one would have to do to refute it solidly is provide one opinion that was formed without regard to religion or tradition and *poof*. Resentment is not a counter-argument. Within the confines of the question asked, non-secular reasons are immediately invalid. Wow, I get a double "screw you". Yay me!Of course, this appeal to emotion isn't relevant, either.

Yay! I agree. QOS can insure availability of resources, and when applied that way is a necessity. Applied in just about any other way, it gives power to those unchecked. I can see your free speech view - and to it I add the idea that net neutrality maintains the Internet's overall value to humanity. Without free, broad dissemination of ideas and the free discussion thereof, societal inertia goes unchallenged.