MishMish

Blike, short answer, diagree I do not like getting caught up in buzzwords either, but do not think that the issue here. Kathy Cox has reportedly said the proposal would leave the option for teaching intelligent design in the schools. I see the proposal as nothing more than a backdoor approach to inserting creationism And as a followup to my previous, have not found any statistics for the 20s, but for more current views (1997) found this poll showing 44% believe in a more literalist creationsim, 39% some sort of intelligent design, and 10% evolution http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/evolution_debate.htm

Alvloh, do not think your objection is clear yet. Having a genetic replicate or adding another individual to the population count are shared features. If runaway cloning is the ony problem for you, would you object to a single clone then? I think part of the popular appeal of or distaste for vanity cloning rests on the fact that people don't realize the clone will not be a duplicate. For those to whom it does appeal expect an inability to face mortality plays a role.

Does having to translate back from images to words introduce a problem?

Sayonara, would be more amusing if Bush were not so dangerous Jadote, thanks for the correction

tinymonkey, and not to speak on behalf of Demosthenes, His account was a bit rose colored, though I would cite other reasons. Not quite sure where the slavery issue fits in for you, but certainly if the colonies wanted religious tolerance for themselves, they were hardly tolerant of other religions in their midst. And just an aside should think many families were split in alliegence. I know I have ancestors who fought for independence, as well as those who did not support the revolution. But as for what makes for a patriot, must disagree, and goes beyond a difference of perspective on the one question. My loyalty is given to principles, and in patriotism translates to the founding ideals of my country, which on the whole I think are pretty darned good ones. Expression of patriotism is in holding the country's representatives to those ideals Might say a different tradition, were it not for the numbers who do think patriotism is expressed through a "my country, right or wrong" attitude. or "my president... " or "my king... " as the case may be It is an entirely different approach. Have given the question some thought, as it is the sort of loyalty I favor in my personal life as well, while I find most people operate on a tribalistic level instead. For me, it raises the question of the development of social interaction and its possible role in fostering group cohesiveness, and whether giving loyalty to principle instead of people is somehow missing the "intent" of the entire process. The only answer have come up with for that is that while tribalism can only serve to exclude, shifting loyalty to principles has the potential at least to be more inclusive, and I can find no fault in that (circular as that is, and recognizing of course may still be missing that "intent")

Perhaps you missed the part where he also thinks he was chosen by God... Real problem is a lot of the public does agree with him, same as with the creationism debates, same as with people's complacency re the Patriot Act, how irrelevant people consider those AWOL WMDs to be, list goes on Crazy country I live in Can only hope the courts will come through on the matter

Because marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Bush said so Now hear he has "threatened" that it may have to be tested in court. I'd be delighted, don't see how banning same sex marriages could possibly be upheld, but maybe am too naive

A couple of years ago my dad told me that more Americans (proportionately) now believe in creationsim than at the time of the Scopes trial. He had gotten that from a newletter from the National Center for Science Education, but had thrown the issue out so do not have the specific numbers or reference Afraid I only visit their site irregularly (should just become a member.) They had this on Missouri: "Bill Requiring Equal Treatment of Intelligent Design and Evolution A bill to be introduced in the current session of the Missouri General Assembly would require "the equal treatment of science instruction regarding evolution and intelligent design". House Bill 911 contains a long list of proposed definitions of terms and concepts such as "analogous naturalistic process", "biological intelligent design", "destiny", and "extrapolated radiometric data". It would require that "If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught, biological evolution and biological intelligent design shall be taught and given equal treatment." The many provisions and requirements of HB911 are too numerous to summarize in this space, but the entire text is here." Web site: http://www.natcenscied.org/ Anyway, thanks for the link to the petition, sent it on to my dad as well

The idea is not to stop people from reproducing, but to address the problem of unlimited reproduction. I am opposed to anything based on means testing or which smacks of eugenics, any proposal needs to be universal and uniform. There will always be cheaters, any system will have cheaters, can only try to put systems in place to minimize them. Question about China though, other than the problems ensuing from killing off infant daughters, has the one child policy of itself caused specific problems

Alvloh: Sure we can, they're called twins I have no problem with stem cell research Have a major problem with cloning individuals for "use," human or other feeling/sentient species, but does not rest specifically on cloning but on the exploitation of others

Aegir, don't know anything about it either, but believe you're referring to telomeres No idea who this guy is, but seemed an interesting read: http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/telomere.htm

National outrage aside, have decided the one child proposal is better as well, and agree whatever proposal is adopted (not to say I expect any to be any time soon) needs to be international Demosthenes, distribution of resources is definitely a factor, but even if that were to be rectified I believe that overpopulation of itself remains the most serious threat. I factor in not only the current population and not only humans but future generations and other species

Is a bit disingenuous at best for the Justice Department to say there have been no violations when the Patriot Act redefines what our rights are In addition, the mere formality of procedure does not mean rights have not been violated. Of the !5000 some odd warrants submitted for FISA review, all were approved ( http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html ) Rather hard not to have the question come to mind if that represents oversight or mere rubberstamp

Glider, can not remember where I saw the reference to extinction but was in the context of learned behaviour now I think about it, and specifically setting some sorts of learning aside as capable of being "extinguished" and not others. Think then I misapplied it And was not suggesting anything quite as simplistic as a leaky bucket, just that it seems reasonable to me if memories are not recreated they could be lost if the neurons are coopted for new associations. My second question refers to that cognitive hook you're referring to, had not heard the term but like it. For myself have thought my poor episodic memories might be explained by low levels of awareness, but not having access to the memories makes judging level of awareness problematic, and have not yet (and only recently started looking into this stuff) come across a proposed model for that specifically. Have seen that extremely stressful situations may inhibit formation of explicit memories, but am interested if "understimulation" could. So question would be whether or not lack of such cognitive hooks is thought to apply to later stages of development as well, at least in certain conditions

Question on whether or not memories can be lost, thought they could. If not, what does "extinction" refer to then, or do they apply the term but not really mean it? Not quite sure how to phrase it, but re being able to retrieve memories in a conscious manner (thinking primarily of episodic) am esp curious if some level of conscious awareness is required at the time of the initial incident, am wondering if memories may not form or be consolidated even if the individual is able to respond to the situation at hand

Of course, what else could it mean?

Oh hell There is no doubt I find myself involved in a number of miscommunication scenarios, and I likewise realize my grammar has deteriorated. Reason I take comments such as Iglak's and MrL's seriously But have recently made tracking down miscommunication errors a priority (have not made grammar a priority, am hoping that will rectify itself, and think it slowly is) and have found the two most common situations are that either the other has introduced an unstated (and invalid) assumption or a term or phrase used has alternate meanings and I choose one while others choose a different (slightly different from the example MrL cited as source of confusion) As for verbosity, as mentioned to Iglak I do have a penchant for being complete and accounting for possibilities when I can. As for comma confusion, do not buy it. The ones in the above were necessary. So basically, tough I am more than willing to take responsibility where due, but will not where I do not think it applies Might add, little if anything I post on the boards would pass muster if on paper. I may do a casual edit on posts, but do not go through the draft & revision process Final comment if I seem to be responding more hashly than you think warranted, I did notice the emoticon, but that is also new for me. I generally consider them little more than a distraction and does not register for me they should have meaning. After a few instances of misinterpretation for that reason, am paying a bit more attertion, but if I now "know" they are supposed to have meaning, would still say they do not properly register as having meaning

In the should homosexual marriages be banned thread question of sex for fun in other critters came up, someone mentioned dolphins, I added bonobos Not sure why I did though, specifically not sure why should be necessary to single out some critters as engaging in sex for fun and not others Aside from questions of how to determine purpose in non-verbal critters, though think can be inferred at times, real question is if is assumed other critters are not having sex for fun, then what is the presumed "reason" To assume they have connected sex to reproduction is silly. In part, comes down to a question of is sex fun or is lack of sex not fun, but either way am not sure what the presumed "reason" for sex is if sex for fun is taken as limited to certain species and not others

MrL, okay, took several tries before could read it as you interpreted it Not sure if the expression is a regionalism, or if I just developed a block of some other sort kept me from seeing could be read either direction At any rate, how you interpreted it was not as I intended it. Hopefully my clarifications in post #108 made that clear

Sayonara, yes, but not to the same extent or in quite the same manner from what have seen on it. Generic references to God bless America are common, personal expressions of piety are common, but Bush has tied his religion to God having chosen him to serve at this time. He poses it that he is fulfilling God's will, essentially suggesting that his political actions are sanctified by God.

MrL, sorry for two posts in a row like this, perhaps is the expression "you've got quite a bit" threw you? Does not mean he has gone a long way towards making his case but that he has a long ways to go to make his case, that is: his argument is weak

MrL, not sure I understand your criticism here I declared no lifestyle invalid, a priori, other than abuse/neglect. I was questioning singling out homosexuality as a factor which "may or may not" adversely affect kids, and pointing out that just about anything a parent does "may or may not" adversely afffect kids That was not an effort to deny parenthood to any or all on some assumed lifestyle but point out that singling out homosexuality as uniquely different is arbitrary. And would disagree on the need to demonstrate as well. If Mossoi can demonstrate that having homosexual parents uniquely adversely affects children (and Mossoi, realize you qualified your statement just think you need to rethink your doubts as well) then he will have a case to be listened to, would depend on his case, the nature and degree of harm whether or not should lead to denying homosexuals rights to parenthood, but I do not think he would even be able to make the case, and there are now enough kids raised by homosexual parents anyway to serve as counterexamples to the argument do not see the case could hold as uniquely causative

Mossoi: Declaring who is or is not an unfit parent, or what lifestyle is or is not beneficial for a child is quite a step for anyone to make Abuse & neglect don't think there can be any argument. Get beyond that, consider the variety of social systems in place throughout the world and that somehow kids generally manage to grow up just dandy, as well as all the potential factors of a parent's situation/personality which may or may not adversely affect a kid, and think you've got quite a bit to demonstrate in suggesting, however qualified, homosexuals should be denied adoption/parenthood

Georgia has now proposed that the term "evolution" be replaced with "biological changes over time." Decision scheduled for May

My two cents Agree with YT on the hypocricy of the Church in giving in to popular sentiment, but do not think it relevant to the initial question Sex for fun occurs in bobobos too, probably other species but don't know offhand Homosexuality occurs in other animals as well As for homosexuals and promicuity, Pinker pointed out nicely you get two men with male reproductive strategies and no "brakes" imposed on the system by female reproductive strategy (and I do not mean to imply women do not enjoy sex, just that is more costly for women) and you end up with a lot of sex and a lot of variable partners in that sex. Simple. And not to say some homosexual men do not choose to be monogamous, but I do see a basis for the "homosexual lifestyle" claim. However, whether or not that is to be considered moral or anything else rests on teh question of promisuity, far as I'm concerned, and far as I'm concerned is not promisuity itself which is a problem but only if trust is betrayed in the process. I come down marriage should be a legal contract, the state should recognize same sex marriages, if any church chooses not to bless it that is their business, but their scruples should have no bearing on what the State does