Saryctos

By changing the argument from overall immigration #s to immigration as a % of population The original comment was not about a %, but a flat value. The size of which may be disputed by Pangloss in the above post, however, the response from iNow was a rebuttal to dismiss the idea that America had a high % total.

And you shouldn't, since you refuted his point with a textbook straw man. Then you dismissed the claim by decreeing it to be invalid without providing any proof to substantiate this belief. I suggest you reduce the combativeness in your posts if you aren't capable of handling negative feedback.

I really do think that the largest factor contributing to the populace's ignorance is the removal of personal responsibility and individuality. If you don't do exactly as you're told, in the event that you cause someone injury or harm you become liable. The very instinct to do as your told, no matter how stupid it sounds, comes from the problem that in most situations your actions are protected by law. However, if you attempt to act in a self serving, intelligent manner, and manage to screw up, you're on your own, sorry. Follow the guidelines next time, but until then fork out the settlement money. This reliance on "going with the flow" to protect yourself from the dangers of attempting to succeed have destroyed the American will to accomplish anything beyond what we've been told we can do (in most of the population). In regards to the religiosity being the cause, I find it the other way around. People cling to the voice of their community as a way to distance themselves from the consequences of their actions. In this way, people with that "holier than thou", extremist style, of thought, are hiding behind their adherence to religious values to avoid any criticism of their activities.

Seems like people aren't being told to hate Bush as much by the idiot box these days. Seems reasonable to believe that the reduction in anti-Bush venom in public discourse would have an inverse effect on his approval rating.

I would say that information is generated by a change in any state of being. Even time plays a role. Given an object which stays constant, there is information in this unchanging state due to changing time.

What is in this article that even opened up the idea of demanding a resignation of a general? I found McChrystal's comments to be well within the realm of decent. The only parts that I imagine anyone found offensive were the descriptions of his daily activities and abrasive demeanor. I cannot see what was so bad that he himself said. edit: take that you pesky 30 day notification!

You've done a marvelous job dancing around a misrepresentation of my comments while avoiding the question posed to you.

The very idea of mass is a way of satisfying a method of inequality. The ability to quantify this difference does not have anything to do with my statement.

How can one person claim proof of equality? Isn't it the duty of the person seeking such a claim to deem the 'proof' an acceptable example thereof? Certainly the burden of proof is on the claimant, but proof of what exactly will constitute your definition of equality? All things are equal until you define some way of differentiating them.

what demonstrable measure do you intend to use to verify any such claims?

Governments don't declare war on their own citizens, and self defense is done at the discretion of the individual, not the state.

Is this last sentence referring to employment or unemployment numbers?

It's all pretty simple really. Say something you want people to hear in a concise, quote worthy fashion. While when you say words that others won't like, try to make it as convoluted as possible. People don't research candidates, they just hang on to the memorable bits. Much like product placement and brand recognition, it isn't the message so much as it is the impression. Truth in politics only serves to provide a quotable denouncement for your opponent. If you manage your claims well enough, you can avoid memorable fact checks and people won't associate the lies with you enough to vote for the other guy.

This made me wonder if perhaps increasing the difficulty in passing legislation would be helpful. As right now it's a struggle to get hard line partisans to vote along party lines to force things through. If it was harder to pass measures perhaps it would trend things towards moderation. -Proposing legislation(assuming you want to get it passed) would need more support meaning it needs to appeal across party lines more than the current situation. -The increased difficulty of getting legislation passed could result in smaller proposed changes, instead of blanket changes with huge impacts. Smaller gradual change is much more desirable than leaps and bounds of almost irreversible changes. -Electing officials who are capable of passing legislation therefore would need to be somewhat moderate if they had any hope of getting things done.

It's alive!!!

I didn't mean to imply that you said anything about removing profits completely. By reducing the profits you'll be reducing the number of people willing to be a part of the drug industry.

Well, you have to think about it in terms of opportunity cost. The reason they bother developing these drugs is because there is money in it. If there weren't massive profits to be had, then they would pursue other options. It's pretty much the same problem with any intellectual property issue. The money draws people towards something, which pushes the advances forward. Take the money out and you'll still have some people who care, but many others will simply do something else instead. It all boils down to figuring out a better way to manage the problem between benefit and motivation. This is likely the biggest challenge of the times with the information age getting into full swing and bringing billions upon billions of dollars into existence from a very small amount of resources.

semi-autos(as listed in the speeding arrest) aren't illegal, which allows their return later. However the conversion into full-auto is illegal, and there's no way to tell until the weapon is fired.(or tear it apart I suppose) I would speculate then that the guns were purchased legally then illegally modified. This is a different case than A Tripolation's point, however I the believe the intent behind the words is the same in that Illegal modification/purchase laws won't restrict access to those who don't obey the laws. How does the size of the legal portion of their arsenal affect the sentencing for their illegal activity? If the items were legally owned, they must legally be returned upon release.

I'm confused as to how any of the subsequent post are relevant to the topic other than ydoaPs'. I'm also apparently just not understanding the facepalm worthiness either. Can someone please elaborate? (All I can see is a community based non-profit insurance system hidden under the guise of a thread about faith healing.)

I stand corrected on this point. To be fair, you had not demonstrated this at all until Mr Skeptic's post. You still call men and women as such do you not? For what reason do we call them by different names? "Arguments about their biracial children" glosses over the distinct difference of topics beign discussed. Simply because both were struggles does not create in them an equality of terminology. Saying the argument is similar while directly refuting their similarity is inconsistent. How is the issue of biracial children similar to the issue of inability to bear children?

The fertility discussion's intent was only to bring to attention the physical differences between homogeneous and heterogeneous couples. For people to dismiss it as non-existent is quite irrational. I honestly don't care as to how people refute this data, only that it is acknowledged. This is a matter of equality by the law. Since "marriage" is the term used to define the various benefits that accompany it (including federal benefits that individual states cannot give), marriage is the term that should be used in this case as well. Unless, of course, you oppose equality. It's really that simple. Saying that gay marriage should be called something else is like saying biracial marriage should be called something else. Equality, and opportunity of equality are two different things that I believe are being mixed in this case. Equality is not present in this situation, as not all things are equal. I don't care how much importance someone puts on the normative concept of child birth, it is simply not physically possible. Thus, there is a difference. I have seen no way of refuting it other than to dismiss it. I argue against the claim that interracial couples had to fight for acceptance of the inability to produce children. Once again, the importance is irrelevant(subjective), its existence is however irrefutable. I'll repeat again I haven't seen a valid argument against the difference other than to dismiss it. Truthfully I have no personal reservation against affording all forms of couples, child bearing, homogeneous, or platonic, the same rights and naming status under law. But I will not simply let this grave ignorance of logic stand without a fight.

An interracial marriage by any other name would still be able to produce children born of those married. Thus this straw man is not relevant. Same sex couples are not an exception to the rule of attempted procreation. There can be no attempt as the organs required to not exist in full. Again with the 'why'. Please ask whole questions otherwise I cannot answer them. My stance is that both parties signing the contract of marriage can in part produce the child. This does not address my post, and like the 1st quote is liable to bit be set ablaze within close proximity to an open flame. Like stated before it is the exception to the rule. I don't believe my statement about disability was posted at the time of this reply. As that is what addresses this point I will allow a chance to argue that in response to the original post.

All of those examples have the same composition with respect to expected physical ability to produce children. Currently, how can we tell whether an infertile couple is being married? Right now we can't, it simply isn't asked. Any couple not able to produce children can be seen as physically disadvantaged(part of them isn't working correctly, either due to illness age, or what have you) Where as a XX, or YY couple could be functioning perfectly and still unable to produce children. The difference in my mind lies in that with respect to infertile couples it is the exception to the rule that they are unable to procreate, while with any homogeneous couple it is impossible for procreation outright with no exceptions.

The lack of gender changes the implications of the relationship as listed in the above post. What about having a different term applied to a different situation creates an "underclass"? What reasons do you have for believing that an orange not being called an apple makes it somehow inferior? EDIT: sorry replyed too fast the first time =P (thrice)

The only difference between a heterosexual and homosexual union is the objective fact that there will be either no man, or no woman. It is easier to see it in this light as the other way 'round is what brings the homosexual problem from so many(2 men, 2 women). If we view the opposite(lack of man, or lack of woman) we can get to the heart of the differences without flaming up the homophobic aspects of the discussion. Could someone make the case that a marriage without a man in the house would be counter to the purpose of marriage? Could they also make a case for lacking a female? It would be neigh impossible to prove either of these claims, and you could certainly find subjective distinctions throughout with which someone could use to argue for or against it. There also exists a difference with respect to producing children. The creation of a child requires both a male and a female. It would be physically impossible without one of the two. My opinion is that marriage is the legal establishment of an intent to produce children(there is nothing in the laws that say this, it is my opinion/feeling on the intent of its creation). However, there is no check for fertility when signing a marriage license, 'nor any intent to procreate clause.(but contextually given the time of its creation was there a full understanding of fertility? How many marriages didn't attempt to produce children? Up until now, what would prompt bothering to draw the distinction?) As it stands however, there is nothing in the laws about the creation of children, it is simply a non-factor in the letter of the law as it now stands. There is also the point that since children cannot be born of the marriage, that there can be no union to the family trees(from the wed). The importance of this comes from the historical implications of marriage. Regardless of how much importance one places on this difference(probably very little if at all for many people), it is there. As I see it the issues worth speculating about revolve around: Absence of male/female as part of the family unit Inability to produce children born from both the wed My stance after all considerations is that all rights afforded heterosexual unions should be given to homosexual couples. However, I do believe that there are distinct differences between the two, and this can easily be acknowledged in using a term other than marriage.