padren

No more than Cannibal-Americans will get the right to hunt down and kill/eat people. On the Scalia note, I think that at the very least the spirit of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" leans towards "does have to prove first that those actions are objectively harmful" because it is the only test that really works with our Constitution and founding principles. We could use religious morality, but that conflicts with separation of church and state and has no solid foundation as a test - religions change, and have no objective basis. One of the things that bothers me the most about the concept that it will "disrupt cohesion" is that it only does so due to the presence of bigots. If someone is willing to beat another human being because they are gay I don't want them discerning civilians from combatants in my bloody name. They clearly demonstrate a double standard on the value of human life. I have no problem with people killing people for the reasons of war (which get messy of course) and I understand that a soldier's job may be to "protect these people, over consideration for those people" which create a necessity to deal with people differently, but it has to be dictated by the situation, not the bigotry and vileness of the soldier. We also have a huge amount of under-reported rape of women in the military. This doesn't mean we shouldn't have women in the military (because boys will be boys) but that we shouldn't have bloody rapists. In principle I actually would have no problem with putting a bullet in the head of any soldiers caught raping or beating their own people in a combat situation. I hate war and violence, but it's an ultimate act of betrayal when you prey on others within the group you are a part of when that group is killing and fighting for their lives. That said, it's only "in principle" as there would be no way to police whether the enforcement was legitimate or contrived. So why is it that we have to cater to these bigots? Why would our military fail without them where others do just fine? When is it ever a good idea to make a deal with those people whose principles you despise and find unforgivable so they can kill people in your name? Is that an American value we should be proud of? Unilaterally Yes. I would recommend a thread-split if this requires further debate, but that's just my opinion.

The first thing I'd have to do is commission a play (adaption of Moby Dick), and grossly overpay the actors. I'd make sure no one gets fired, and offer stupid size bonuses for seeing the play through to the final run. Of course, I'd have to do everything in my power to make it a complete trainwreck, such as 2 months before opening night decide it needs to be "spiced up" and now all the characters are "cats" and not people, so Ishmael becomes " Ishmeow" and it all gets even crazier from there. To pull this off, I of course would be wearing a monocle. As far as practical applications, most of my better thought out plans require a bit more than $100b, so I'd get busy trying to turn that money into more money. As for people already doing at least some of what I want to do, are Robert_Bigelow with Bigelow Aerospace and of course Dean Kamen, the latter of which I really appreciate for both the types of problems he tries to solve and the dedication to youth interest in science and education.

Why stop with the idea of life after death? Wouldn't the idea that "everyone who sticks with a horrible job will automatically win the mutli-million dollar lotto on their 40th birthday" help "create will power" even better? At least up until their 40th birthday. It would probably be even better if we threw in a bunch of virgins and a kick'n sweet guitar. And all coffee shops will have to give you free coffee for life - no matter what you order. Also, you get to play "warship derby" where you and a few other lucky individuals get to control obsolete warships that are scheduled for scuttling and crash em into each other while you watch from a hot air balloon. Now that's a will power incentive. Of course, if none of it turns out to be true you won't exactly have a lot of well prepared 40 yr olds... but it would be one hell of a dream while it lasted. A subset of both would probably drop out, with a higher percentage of those that are told that there is only a negative value (cost without benefit) in going to school. Many would drop out and start their own jobs, others would adjust their college courses to help them start their own businesses. It boils down to if you convince people that "do [x] and your life will be hard" and others that "do [x] and your life will be great" naturally more of the latter will find [x] worth working towards, whereas the first group will be working hard to find alternatives to [x]. Pretty simple honestly. You say "no reward" as if life can only have one. What you mean is "there is no reward of type [x]" so working hard towards reward [x] would be what we call "a huge waste of time." Also, if you look at society, you'll see that there are a lot of people who choose to basically "give up" on life and get stuck in a funk. It happens to people of all variations of financial means. It has more to do with how people cope with when they do experience adversity and disillusionment, than whether they have the bizarre luck to never experience those things. I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. Both groups would be stronger, just adapted for different environments. One will be adapted to jobs requiring college degrees, the other group will be adapted to financial independence without requiring a college level job. In your scenario, because you lied to one group you gave them the idea they have to be adapted to an environment that doesn't exist (since there really was jobs) so naturally, they'll be more poorly adapted to that scenario. Conversely though, if you did the exact same experiment, but it turned out there weren't jobs, the preparedness of the two groups would be exactly opposite. This demonstrates it's not that "telling people things will be like [x]" is helpful, but telling people how the future will look is helpful. It doesn't bother me. Granted, I could be diagnosed with 12 weeks to live tomorrow and it's entirely possible my whole world view would change - or it wouldn't at all. I can't say, all I know is that there could potentially be life events that radically change my opinion on the topic. Personally, I think that it doesn't bother me because (a) I really like what I get to see and (B) when I compare it to what I was promised (absolutely nothing, not even transient existence) I feel rather fortunate. Life's awesome. Why does it bother you?

The times you have been and will be alive will always be as they were/are/will be, so it's more like you'll still be alive in those times, not so much a different time. Another thing to be aware of too, is that humans have had radically different views on what the universe is and what we are throughout history, so whatever concepts about life and mortality that bother you now will quite possibly be viewed as obsolete concerns at some point. We most likely will not be around to see it ourselves, but there could easily be people in the future who face the same concerns and come to conclusions that you'd be happy with thanks to a more mature understanding of the universe and the human experience. Still, if that happens to be out there somewhere in the future, it will apply equally well to us as it does to them. Either way, we don't have control over what those answers would be - but what we can do is enjoy what we can and live the way we feel we should live.

Because it "is" while it is. Secondarily, consider what you mean by "bother" since really what else are you going to do? Anything you "bother" to do will be doing something, the only way to cut that down really is to kill yourself - but death will come inevitably anyway, so why rush? Why not see what you can and what you can do, while you can? Is a life spent not bothering to do anything, really any more enjoyable than one bothering trying to do everything you can? I find bothering to be quite fun! If you find that bothering is not fun, I recommend contemplating the issue more (which is what you are doing by starting this thread) because it really can be. Personally, I find the idea that we emerged from the mud simply due to how mud tends to influenced by the sun on a rock of this composition and ended up being able to look around and say "wow" is freakishly awesome. I am continually impressed by the scope and depth of the Universe and while this experience is transient, the fact that even such a transient experience can exist at all is so mind-blowingly incredible that I am quite happy to accept the transient aspect. Also - consider the fact that time is an illusion - there is no present in time, only in our perceptions at any point in time. Say to yourself right now "I know this is the present" and then remember that memory 5 minutes later. It doesn't feel the same because all you have 5 minutes later is a memory, but at that moment in time you knew that was the present and it still exists there in the space/time of the Universe. That intensity and certainty that it was in fact, the present in your consciousness still exists at that moment in time - even if it doesn't exist in your current consciousness at your current moment in time. All moments past, present, and future exist in time somewhere in this Universe, including the day you die - you just don't have any information about it, but it does exist. So, there is a moment that you die, and it exists in space/time now, but you are still here now - it hasn't erased your past. So you do have a limited number of moments and those moments will only impact the future up to a point, past which they will be effectively "lost" going forward, but they'll always exist in the points of space/time that make up your existence and influence. That can never be undone, and there is no more "objective" value to whether those moments are in the past, present or future. We may be finite, but in our own way we really are eternal, and what exists not only can't not-exist at the point in space/time that it did exist. We are just biased towards things that do/will exist in the present/future because those are the only things that matter to how we deal with the world from our current present. Objectively, we are all just features of space/time that exist as part of the Universe through a span of space/time, so don't worry that there is a "future" from another perspective in which you won't exist. Since time is part of the description of the Universe, you will always exist as part of that description regardless of how small relative to the full scope of space and time within the Universe. Why not explore that, and make it the best possible chunk of space/time you can? Got any more pressing matters to take care of?

I suspect this may in part be due to the "Jerry Springer Effect" in that it's much easier to see highlighted cases that pop up and create a false sense of "this has become commonplace" while forgetting the sample group is over 300 million people, and our ability to be uncover of current cases is increasing at a rate that far outpaces the number of that those current cases are increasing by. Secondarily, while there may be ups and downs (tracking behavior on some index similar to the stock market) we actually are doing better globally and have been on a steady increase over the last 10,000 years. We pretty much just began to enjoy the luxury of having alternative civil remedies to common life problems that don't involve massive bloodshed. Consider: Humans are predatory animals with (in evolutionary time) a long history of using brutality and violence to solve common problems In an exceptionally short time we have recently started exploring non-predatory alternative solutions to those common problems We have recently come to appreciate those non-predatory solutions so much, that it is actually painful to see where we don't apply them or haven't yet figured out how to apply them. Our ability to observe the world has increased exponentially very recently, exposing ourselves to both the great and horrible things make up the current state of humanity In short: If you were in the first human collective to discover soap and thus hygiene you would very quickly learn how much we all stink. That doesn't however make the discovery of soap and hygiene a bad thing. Re OP: We exist in the untenable position: If we die, we are erased. If we don't, our brains will eventually have to forget some stuff to make room for more stuff - who you end up being while you live forever would eventually obliterate your former self just as completely as death. Our brains are designed to solve problems and achieve goals, so we naturally want life to have a "goal" even though we have no objective way of determining the value of any given goal. On top of that - we only have about 80 yrs tops to really figure it out.... immortality would solve the "only 80 yrs" part, but does nothing to solve the question. All it would mean is you have an eternity to try and figure out just where the heck you are and where you are going.... but there's no reason to believe it can be solved in a gillion years any more easily than in 80. My recommendation would be to: 1) Appreciate what's around you - this whole existence thing is pretty awesome crazy 2) Ask yourself if you are holding onto unrealistic expectations - people may have told you the world works a certain way, but the world never has made any promises. Find the subtleties between what you thought you had and what you can see you have. 3) Continue to try to fix what you find to be wrong, without ever expecting to get anything right - we see degrees of refinement that can greatly improve the quality of life, but there is no such thing as a perfect answer, and the stress to find one and the discomfort of not having one will drive you to be a better, more self-reflective individual... but that feeling is just the pressure that drives that force of self refinement, not something you should get down on yourself for or an indicator of failure.

Considering the other incredibly callous and violent aspects of Roman culture (and most of the ancient world) I don't think you can really make a special case about eradicating another culture. What we have gained from the Romans wasn't a result of some charitable gift to future generations - they were largely the result of self-interested advancements to benefit themselves and maintain a violent power structure in their favor. That was the goal of just about everyone with any amount of power back then, the Romans just did it well for a while. Is killing 50,000 out of a cultural group consisting of 50,000 people (thereby erasing it) worse than killing 100,000 people out of a cultural group of 500,000? In the case of the latter, twice as many people die but the culture lives on - so over 2,000 years later we could benefit from the contributions of that culture, but the cost in more lives would seem trivial because they'd be long dead anyway. However, that's just due to our perspective of having come along much later - if any life of any person has any value at all, it shouldn't matter if that life exists in the past, present or future. But somehow being critical of them robbing us of that cultural contribution thousands of years later seems petty when their many other campaigns and policies dwarfed the destruction of Carthage in terms of suffering caused. I am not saying we shouldn't be saddened by the destruction of Carthage, but I think the qualities that make it especially poignant are pretty subjective to our own moment in history and how it affects us.

The fact that people generalize was not being disputed. Nor was whether or not it is reasonable to do so. The point of the comparison was to demonstrate how a singular characteristic (being found guilty of a capital crime) can be applied to everyone who shares that characteristic even when it is not the characteristic that justifies the action being applied. In my example, I used innocent death row inmates vs. guilty death row inmates as the hypothetical disputed ratio - since it's generally acceptable to treat all convicted inmates as guilty inmates due to the sheer number of guilty inmates among the convicted population. This was the only singular point of comparison I was trying to draw. I think there is justifiable reasons at times to generalize. If someone chugs from a bottle of vodka and gets in a car - that's a pretty justifiable reason to think they are driving under the influence. Sure - the bottle may turn out to be filled with water and not vodka, but it's a reasonable basis for suspicion, as most people drinking clear liquid from a bottle of vodka are probably drinking vodka, and not water. Please note: I am only outlaying this as a "fringe scenario" to demonstrate that generalizations are not unilaterally impractical or unethical. I do not think it is reasonable to conflate Islam and terrorism. I think it's understandable why you jumped the gun, but all the same you did. You attacked a problem that wasn't there in that conversion. In addition, it's worth noting that on a forum like this it's not worth making assumptions. It is a fact that swansont did not propose that any given ratio of made the generalization acceptable - he only commented that the ratio shifted and wanted to know which ratio the proponent considered both acceptable and accurate. The topic you wanted to explore is a worthwhile one IMO, but it wasn't relevant to that discussion (it could be relevant to the thread in general, just not that exchange within the thread). That's really the only point I wanted to make.

With regards to both of these comments, I just want to point out that it is common to use the logic of an argument to demonstrate an argument's weakness and that should not be considered implicit agreement with the premise. Consider a (slightly) less touchy issue - such as someone suggesting that 98% of people on death row are guilty, therefore capital punishment is justifiable. Someone can challenge the validity of the 98% number (especially if the proponent has changed that number between posts) without implying agreement with the premise that a critical percentage of guilty prisoners justifies capitol punishment. Above and beyond any position on any topic is the issue of the validity of any data cited, and it's in the common interest of all parties to challenge, test and refine it - regardless of position. Secondarily, I think it's quite fine to comment something like "I just want to point out that regardless of whether the ratio [n] has a value of [x] or [y], I think the premise that [n] at any value can be used to legitimately label a broad sociological group is inherently flawed." At that point, you are challenging the premise, not the value being disputed without making (somewhat understandable but still inaccurate) assertions about the posters' views.

I guess I consider myself lucky that at an early age, I felt that understanding the principles of how the world works and is interconnected was my best survival strategy. I can almost understand why people would get a lot of those wrong - as mentioned earlier, most of these things don't factor as priority information for a lot of people. I personally disagree with the idea that "it doesn't matter where Iraq is" but I can understand why someone living in a strong red or blue state (ie, almost any state in the union) would feel entirely like giving up on politics, foreign wars and who's on the supreme court. I think it's an attitude that helps create the problem it's a response to and a very bad survival strategy, but it does kinda make sense. Blatantly wrong facts though are really worse than the ignorance though. As bad as it is to say "I don't know, I don't follow that" about an important topic, picking answers to suit a delusion of choice is what really disturbs me PS: Regarding NeedsImprovement's list, I think that the line item "* Everyone knows the world and the sun revolves around them." implies the entire list was sarcastic.

Thanks for keeping this topic alive iNow. I've been thinking that the "Godholm syndrome" could be taken a degree further but I'm not sure. What if it isn't God, but "this adversarial and volatile world" that is the oppressor? God is simply one (albeit dominant) pattern people use to make sense of the world, but there are many others. People use all kinds of patterns ranging from "positive thinking" to karma to voodoo to try to apply some level of sense and order to life's events. Those people trapped in the mine are dealing with a horrible scenario that was created by physical laws of the world in a semi-random fashion - in that... while physics is responsible for the inevitable disaster, enough small factors contribute to such disasters occurring in any given individual's life that it appears random. By having faith in God, they are quite literally expressing faith in some sort of "order" to the events as they apply to them. It's entirely within context of Stockholm syndrome because they are trusting their tormentor to get them out of the very situation "he" put them in. However, the reason it's a comfort is that it is much better to think your captor has a plan, than is playing Russian roulette with your life.

Out of curiosity, what distinguishes the "proof of God" as proposed in this thread versus say, "proof that something created the universe to eat us" theory? If we had started out with a premise that "I think we were put here to fatten up so something could eat us" and used all the proofs for God mentioned as proof towards the "eating us" claim, would they not support that just as equally? We create conditions that are very rare in the wild. A cow might be surprised that water, shelter, and food are all really close by in an area without predators - would that be any different than our surprise that the forces of gravity, electromagnetism etc are all finely tuned* to our ability to exist? Humans remaining on very good and even friendly terms with their food before slaughtering it - could that not be the same with our own caring miracle working God? Now, I don't think we are being fattened up to be eaten by some strange exo-universe farmer. My point is there is as much support for that theory in these "proofs" as there is for the idea that they are proofs of God. When evidence is so shaky that it could point to a multitude of possibilities, is it really justifiable to claim it as proof for whatever pet theory you have? *Personally I never liked the "improbable favorable conditions for life" argument for other reasons, but when those reasons are dismissed by opinion it's worth noting it is equally suggestive of alternative possibilities.

I see where you are coming from, but I think there's a line between making a principled stand to not compromise (which is admirable for the most part) and being able to accept that I live in a society with slightly different values. I may believe my values are better and I may try to share their merits but I still have to live in a society that has every right to not do things my way. When it comes to the State's involvement with marriage I disagree with society, but I don't think I vehemently disagree. I find it pretty understandable considering society just 100-200 years ago. If I was a vegetarian I would be against any eating of animals yet I think it would be wrong for me to fail to support stronger sanitary conditions at meat processing plants if it was clearly causing harm. Morally, I have to accept that I live in a society that may disagree with me on points, and for each item on which I disagree I have to ask myself if I a can live in that society with good conscience without aggressively opposing that point. If the US had slavery, I'd be fighting to end it or I'd move. When it comes to marriage benefits and state involvement, I say "meh" and hope we move away from that idea over time, but I can't expect the majority of people wanting that for some time to come. Long story short, I agree about moral stands, I just disagree it is necessary or even always moral to take a moral stand on every issue when the ultimate result would be having no society good enough to live in.

Out of curiosity, how would you suggest a pluralistic society deal with incompatible moral codes? If a group of Mormons believes it's okay for a 41 yr old man to marry and have children with a 14 yr old girl... most would argue that "attacks the true dignity" of the girl (and a few other things honestly) and the pedo should be arrested. Some religious people believe women shouldn't have the same privileges as men. Some (including many Catholics) believe that women shouldn't even have control of their own reproductive organs. Secularists say "having sex with children is bad mkay... there is evidence that says it's bad" and yet some Mormons say "it's what God wants and God says it's all good and even a moral duty" so who has the right to do what? What should morality be based on?

That's fine and all, if I had my way any state or federal benefits wouldn't be based on religious traditions. People that wanted unions would just get unions and if they also wanted a marriage they'd get married - without the state ever being involved. That said, most people don't want things my way and unions/marriages/legal implications/religious rites are currently heavily entangled and will likely be for some time to come. While supporting the goal of "fixing the driver's license bureau" we have to deal with the immediate issue: based on how things are, certain people do not have the same access to benefits as others, with only sexual orientation as the deciding factor. My point was specifically about the issue of rights vs. privileges: state recognition of marriage and subsequent benefits definitely are a privilege and if the state cuts back on spouse joint tax breaks... it's not like the the Supreme Court is going to overrule it on account of some "right" of the petitioner. However, access to said benefits or the denial thereof, on the basis of discrimination for sexual orientation is the denial of rights. Equal access to benefits is a basic principle, and when we do create special scenarios (affirmative action, tax breaks for parents, special police privileges, etc) it's to address a specific issue, and has to be rationally justified. So isn't it fair to say this issue is about rights, even if marriage is not a right?

Just to address the "is marriage a right or privilege" debate... I think the best way to break it down is: 1) Religious marriage, without any involvement or recognition by the state may be a right, but immaterial to the discussion. 2) State granted privileges for state sanctioned marriages are a privilege. 3) People have a right to access state granted privileges without discrimination for reasons of sex, race, religion or sexual orientation. Driving is a privilege. To ban women from driving based on sexual discrimination would violate their rights even if driving itself is not one. Does it not make sense that whether marriage is a right or privilege is basically irrelevant, when the real issue is the right to equal access to state benefits and legal status?

It does leave that possibility open though, so you can't really say for sure whether your results are accurate. For the record, while I am suspect of being able to intuit most complex pseudo-random number patterns, it is a known fact that we can do complex calculations without being aware of it. I recall some NPR show talking about how kids learn to catch baseballs - saying that the techniques implied the use of much more complex math than the child was aware of. I've played a bit with using intuition as a math aid to a degree... really minor stuff but basically being able to skip steps by trusting the number that pops up in my head and then later verifying it. I've had some success, though I've also found it's always good to double check. Secondarily, if it wasn't for the fact this thread already pops up in a google search, in the future you could post an image containing the numbers. That way there is no text to match. It's not perfect, as you may use language to describe the experiment that you hadn't thought of. Lastly, if you want really decent results, you should test in a controlled environment using a sampling of participants that aren't aware they are signing up specifically for a math experiment. It never really matters if your premise is outlandish or not- all that matters is how robustly you test your premise and that you only draw suggested conclusions within the scope of the accumulated data.

While my experiences are limited to the local nude beach and of course, a few blurry occasions involving tequila I agree. The problem I'd say is that it'd be hard to go through the day with people around that still share a profound sense of novelty on the issue. Of course, where I live in Seattle it's not that uncommon to see someone riding their bike down the street completely nude, and no one raises an eye from what I can tell. You should definitely wear a dress though for the day to show your support - I recommend something with a floral print.

Let us know how it goes! Out of curiosity, what theories are being shaken up? Are you pulling a Robert Langdon in the world of paddlefish?

Will you throw on a dress with no shirt and support your sisters on that day? Edit: It may be more popular with women if us guys could just get one day out of the year and actually pull of "not be a staring creepy lech day" but, even with women being fully clothed it does seem to be about as likely as a herd of cats getting through a production of Riverdance in formation.

It really boils down to how you want to think about Love. Is the ban on clothing of mixed fibers a result of love? If "the people of the day" had a hankering for mixed fiber clothing that was a mix of cotton and asbestos then it could be... some sort of "tough love" but it is a bit of a stretch. It's a matter of choice more than analysis: If you believe God is all about love, and that he makes choices that people don't always understand in the way a child doesn't always understand their parents you can "give him the benefit of the doubt" but it's not based on a rational analysis of the various laws and actions of God as described in scripture, it's based on select scripture that defines his motivations as being that way and choosing to invest in that.

The whole issue of why one person may like certain music more than other type - the main reason we can't answer that specifically, is that individual tastes are based on exceptionally complex variables. While we can actually build some good theories that may help explain generalized preferences within any given population, the specific tastes of an individual will not always fit within those parameters. In that sense, their tastes are "mysterious" simply because they can't be modeled, but does that really say anything that interesting? Science may answer those questions some day, if a human brain can be completely mapped and modeled. We certainly aren't there now, but just because something is too complex to measure with current (or even possibly future) technology and methods doesn't mean the mechanisms are any less mundane than easily measured and predicted phenomena. If science can't measure something at all, then it's simply not a fruitful domain of scientific research. That is neither good or bad, it's just a fact.

What usually happens is you see a thread that seems to be hot - already 6 or 7 pages, and you get through the first few pages before realizing all the names are pretty old and quickly see that the dates are from a couple years ago... only bumped by a "yeah me too" comment at the very end. If the title is "Who will win: Obama or McCain" it's pretty self-evident, but often enough you end up reading through posts you thought at first were current, and realize aren't. Especially when you click "read most recent post" and it goes to the very first post that's actually 3 years old. What if when you added a necro-post to an old thread (when the previous post was more than x months/years old) it adds a (revived) after the title, so if someone posted here after 6 months of inactivity say, the title would show up as "Zombie Threads (revived)" in the forums? That could be pretty simple, and as a visual cue it would help you easily differentiate.

Aside from the tautology in the title, yeah... as much as I can't wish the guy harm... how very much I wish he wasn't Glenn Beck.

I actually have similar thoughts on the topic that, if you can predict something negative will come about by doing something, it doesn't matter how things "should be" or how right you are - you have to address the real consequences honestly. I personally suspect that most of the people involved predicted this would not have a negative impact - I can't imagine the list of NYC politicians backing the initiative while expecting the backlash. As for people who are affected by 911 more directly than myself... I have to make room for the fact that I don't share their perspectives, but again it was the people NYC elected in NYC that backed it and if anyone should speak for those affected by 911, I'd think right at the top of the list you'd find New Yorkers. As an aside, the sheer irony of condemning Muslims for their "insensitivity" while (very insensitivity) equating them with the very radicals that attacked on 911 is downright mind-boggling. It's moments like that where while I am trying to be sensitive to the "special needs" of this thin skinned and easily offended segment of our society...that it really feels like apologizing for a spoiled 3 yr old throwing a tantrum in a grocery store. At some point people have to grow up and deal with the fact that not everyone they think looks the same actually are the same. For the record I'm not talking about people who were directly affected by 911 - I can understand how such a trauma can leave an imprint even you rationally wish wasn't there yourself. However, most of the bile seems to be coming from people not in New York, but people who chose to wrap themselves in it just so they could justify their views and have their tantrums. It's that segment that really bothers me, them and those who rile them up.