padren

Except that his constituents are probably donating money to his campaign like crazy because of his behavior, since many districts contain very upset conservative voters that believe if such tactics are needed to "save America from that Muslim" than they just hope their representative is brave enough to make such an ass of himself. Did I say "make an ass of himself?" I mean, "bravely denounce the communist take over of America that would put our elderly in death camps where they are impregnated and forced to have abortions to harvest stem cells."

"From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his needs." The fatal flaw is someone, somewhere as to determine what a person's ability is, and what their needs are. Unfortunately one of the biggest challenges on a personal scale for anyone is answering those questions for themselves. People go from captains of industry to Buddhist monks trying to answer it. People struggle with continuing education or remaining in their current employment all the time, or should they try to become an actor, singer, writer, artist. And a state is supposed to answer that question for everyone from shore to shore? Even if the state could generate the perfect answer for each person it doesn't mean each person would agree or be happy with that answer. Being able to try things and fail is critical to self determination - but when the state needs you to succeed they can't afford you to take risks, even if that's what's most important to you. Now, that is of course regarding socialist governments, not socialist policies. Even the fire department is a socialist policy. It's important to differentiate.

I prefer to think of it was "twice as many people believe the positions of the planets and stars strongly influence their lives, than actually believe fox news is liberal" (It's an old poll, but when you hit the 14% mark you can find just about anybody who believes just about anything.)

I have to point out, that science doesn't disregard anything - it doesn't matter where information comes from or whether the implications support ancient myths turning out to be factual accounts - it tests what it can test, and doesn't examine what it cannot examine. It's really that simple. If scientific studies found that people could read minds then science would document that people can read minds. It would not "disregard" it as hokey. You may find such studies to be unpopular in the sciences, since people do tend to want to work on studies and projects they expect to be fruitful, but it would receive no more or less scrutiny than any other study. What exactly do you mean by "don't believe science will be able to come to a truth until it is willing to engage in the fact that what people are sensing as a spiritual presence?" Science is the painstaking measuring, and remeasuring of the measurable, finding patterns and testing theories about those patterns. Newton was able to find relationships between measurable weight (mass) and very simple mathematical relationships to motion and force. His work was remarkable but it did not tell us why those relationships existed - nor was it intended to. Since then we've been able to delve into the exactly how mass is relates terms of the building blocks of matter, isolated what we know as the four fundamental forces of nature to create the dynamics we see in the world. This is still just the result of finding patterns by isolating variables which requires painstaking precision and patience, creating theories that explain those patterns and then seeing if those theories can predict reality: If you can measure "action" can you predict "reaction" and when it doesn't refining those theories until they are scrapped or you find something that does. Whether people are "sensing as a spiritual presence" is immaterial to the phenomena we observe, measure, and make predictions about. It's not that science "disregards" a "spiritual presence" its just not something we can measure to verify, and no theories involving a "spiritual presence" have come up that can help advance scientific knowledge. Unless one does, it doesn't seem to be relevant. Science isn't even biased against such concepts - they just don't come up with any veracity. Supernatural is a very large and blanket term. Vampires are supernatural creatures - of fiction. There are supernatural explanations for why the sun rises and the eclipses occur, why the North Star stays steady and the rest rotate around them, and why some points of light (the planets) move independently of the backdrop. Many of these explanations contradict each other. So when you say "supernatural" you need to narrow down what you consider to be supernatural - it's a term that is set by the observer, not the phenomena. Maybe you mean telepathy or telekinesis or prescience or clairvoyance or perhaps you feel some of those are possible and the rest are rubbish. What about shape-shifters - are there people who can morph into animals and back? Are there people that, with the right incantations and special blend of herbs and spices cause one person to fall in love with another, or bring a hex upon them and their family? A lot of people believe in all the above, and that all are supernatural phenomena that occur on a regular basis. Others think some are supernatural, and others can be explained by psychology. Where do you draw the line, and what compels you do draw it where you do? The whole part of intuition is a little unfair - you are sampling only the winners. Many animals followed their natural instincts straight into oblivion thanks to many mass extinction events throughout geological time. The ones that are still here (including us) have a knack for hanging in there (so far) but that is the result of an unimaginably long span of incremental evolution. Humans developed brains capable of very refined pattern recognition and abstract thought which blew the doors wide open for us - to live in places and in ways that instinct alone never could have. This event was so recent in our history (in terms of how long our instincts took to evolve) that we are finding it hard to balance. We have passed down little things that help that we've discovered through trial and error - many of which without ever understanding the principles of how they helped... but we are very new to this whole "intelligence thing" and as such it's rather volatile. Intuition may help but it may also hurt us - intuition cannot be trusted as objective unless evidence suggests that it is. Well it can, but at one's own peril. As to the "force" or direction we sense things going in - have you ever noticed the wake behind a boat? It's easy to see behind us, and gives us the feeling that we've come a long way but it says nothing about what is ahead of us. Wide open waters behind us do not imply an absence of rocks ahead - and if we were all wiped out by a super-nova tomorrow none of us would be the wiser. No one would be around to say the whole of the world added up to being snuffed out in a single day. Every day that doesn't happen seems like evidence to the contrary, yet it has no bearing on the future. Psychological stresses can have a heavy toll on the body, and we often intuitively (subconsciously) know the causes of such stresses and thus how to resolve them to be healthier. This doesn't require the abstract model of a "force" to be "in tune" with but if it helps you that's fine, but you should know there are simpler explanations. What is a "truth system" exactly? You can't convince a true Scientologist or any person of any faith that their beliefs are unfounded - even though they will state things they call "truth" that are in direct conflict with each other. They each know they can't all be right and each think only they are - how can that be healthy? How can such certainty ever be a good thing when two people will each tell you that they know the "spiritual truth" and that the other is wrong to think they know it instead? I am glad you are enjoying and learning science. Honestly I am not the sort of person to try to dissuade you of your religious convictions, but you must acknowledge when you try to explain the world we live in is better explained with spiritual factors, that theory will be tested. I highly recommend that you engage for a time with science for science's sake and not consider it a "battle" between science and spirituality. Honestly, science has no issue with spirituality - it just doesn't play any measurable role when examining the four fundamental forces. You can draw philisophical conclusions but those will not be scientific - that's a whole other discipline. However, if you put aside proof or disproof of faith for some time and just take some time to enjoy science (and honestly, if you appreciate the beautify of this world, science offers some exceptionally remarkable ways to see into the depths of it - it is rewarding even as a sight seeing tour) you'll be in a better position to consider how spirituality and science may or may not intersect. But to give that consideration it's due you should really immerse yourself more to have a broader understanding of what science is and does. You'll enjoy the process and you'll be able to explore it further later when you are less likely to hit so many brick walls that everybody does when they are getting into the subject.

Just on the topic of the ObamaCare abortions issue: Personally, I think it would be fair to require private health insurance providers to disclose if they offer plans within the pool that fund abortions. If they offered packages in conservative areas that loudly proclaimed to not cover abortions, yet had other packages in the same insurance pool that did cover abortions it would be fair to require that information be disclosed. Secondly, as far as a public option, while I would hate to see the extra headache but I could concede that two public option pools be made available, with an "abortion firewall" between them. The public option is supposed to be a safety net and if we are taking about providing guaranteed access to medical coverage than you can't make a woman's access to abortion magically go away because some people don't like the idea of paying for it. Likewise, people who don't want to pay for abortion will never be happy doing so, so why not create two separate pools? It's not like taxes pay for any of it - the pools are supported by those enrolled. Some enrolled people may have their plans paid for through social assistance programs, and those taxes going in would pay for abortions if the individual opted for that public option - that couldn't be helped - but if they are using the public option they could at least opt their money (whether their own or through social assistance) goes into the non-abortion pool. Honestly my first thought is considering I have to pay for wars that I may very well consider murder and interrogations I consider torture, that Pro-Lifers should realize sometimes they don't always get to only pay for things they like and deal with it like the rest of us. Their plight is not unique. At the same time, I have to acknowledge that anyone upset with their taxes being spent on war and torture should raise bloody hell about it, so I can't tell them to just suck it up without being disingenuous. (Maybe I'm bitter because they act like they are the only ones who are being asked to fund murders they don't want to be tied to) Since as a nation we do make decisions to fully go to war or not, instead of "half go to war" we do have to accept some wars we may end up in we may not personally like and yet have to support financially. Considering all of this, I do think while a "two pool" system would be more convoluted, it could be the best compromise so everyone has access and "clean hands" in as of much as they can. At least until the Jehovah Witnesses start decrying that they will not pay taxes if a single dime goes to blood transfusions.

That would mean each side is duty bound to support/oppose ideological legislation, which would effectively require a filibuster proof super-majority to ever pass anything. Your side could win the majority, a huge majority, but if it's not a super-majority than nothing could get done because it could be effectively vetoed by the opposition. The system is designed to encourage bipartisanship and collaborations, but Republicans have effectively gone on strike and refuse to vote for anything that is not 100% unabashedly hardline Republican. Since it would be conscionable for Democrats to support anything 100% Republican (at least, now that there is a Democrat in the White House) they have imposed a stalemate. Also, technically since Liberman is an independent, he can pander to lobbyists from both sides of the isle without drawing the ire of his party.

No of course not, and that's not what I was trying to say at all. I think game censorship is very overblown - people who play football don't go tackling others at the grocery store either. It's very important to be clear that most people separate game metaphors and those goals from real life. People who go off and use video games as an excuse probably were a bit off to begin with. I think CP is different than video game violence - violence in entertainment is to provide adrenaline and excitement through stimuli that appears dangerous. CP on the other hand, is to stimulate excitement to those who have sexual fixations on children. (Not all imagery of children without clothes, but CP emphasis on the P does.) Due to the harm child predators cause, we do not as a society tolerate even those fantasies. Most people that want to play violent videos want a fast paced adrenaline kicking experience, not to kill someone. Most people who want to use CP want to molest children. We have high penalties for child pornography because when someone is busted for possessing it, they obviously lack the self control despite the risk of prosecution, and are considered a genuine risk to the welfare of children. I think there is a strong correlation between users of CP and child abuse, which is why it's controlled. I don't think people would suddenly start using it all over if it was legal - anymore than everyone would drink and drive if we had no DUI laws - but there would be a correlating cost to society due to enough people taking advantage of it. Do you think that pedophilia is wide spread enough to allow access to such medical material would cause more harm than help parents identify health risks? It seems odd that parents would be denied this sort of material when their intentions are clearly benign - but it is a tricky issue.

Just to explore another angle of the "anti" argument, I think it may be worth considering the "regulated substance" view instead of the "freedom of speech" view. When it comes to freedom of speech, we do allow for censorship of phrases that include threats against someone's life, and direct statements telling people to commit crimes. I think it's worth arguing that child pornography is a type of "regulated substance" that, while not a drug, causes suffering to society on par (per capita) to that of hard drugs. By that I mean, if the number of people who used heroin viewed child pornography you could expect sexually based assaults on children to be comparable to crime funded drug habits. I could own heroin for non-consumption purposes, either to collect, or some non-narcotic use. Maybe I just like the powder to use to grit the path with when it snows. When you think about it - what crime would I be committing? I would not be selling it, distributing it, and not using it... but it's a controlled substance and I could be put in jail for possessing it. I can understand the logic - I probably shouldn't be allowed to own weapons grade plutonium either, even if I have no malicious use for it planned. My individual case does not trump society's right to make blanket regulations due to it's inherently dangerous nature. In the same way, child pornography can be considered a dangerous material. Even if you overlooked the harm to the child, the product is dangerous. You could choose to debate whether the dangers are overplayed - both with child porn and drugs - but that is an aside to the fact that society has deemed it dangerous and chosen to regulate it. It is tricky because it overlaps the "freedom of speech" issue, and regulating information as a dangerous material is dangerous in itself and open to abuse. However, we already to regulate freedom of speech with regards words spoken to hire hitmen and prostitutes among other things. Plus, the possibility of abuse does not affect the pure abstract intent of such regulation. I don't think it should be criminal to unwittingly view child pornography anymore than it is a crime to be involuntarily drugged. From my understanding of the law it can be overly harsh, but I don't think the basis itself is flawed. Now, the other issue - synthetic child porn - through CGI/airbrushing to make photo realistic child pornography that does not actually ever harm a child.... I have to say I consider this still open to regulation. If a new chemical was discovered that had the exact same effects as heroin but was synthetic it would be legal at first but quickly become regulated in the same way as heroin. That's why I break it down into two crimes: the first being the production of child pornography (the provider) and second the distribution or consumption as a controlled material. The synthetic stuff is just as likely to "feed the habit" of pedophiles as the real deal... it just didn't hurt a child to produce. Regardless of your own benign intentions for possessing such materials, you can't really argue you should be a special case unless you think heroin and plutonium should be unregulated for "well intentioned" use. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedJust a side note on the more direct OP topic: Learning tools in the form of games, or situational simulators are on the rise - would a pediatric computer program be considered "peddling kiddie porn" if it included child anatomy? Should it be strictly controlled and only be allowed in the hands of doctors? Is it conceivable that a parent may wish to have access to such information to better know warning signs of ailments and know when their child's health is in danger? I don't know of any conditions off the top of my head that would require "kiddie porn" equivalent photography but it's certainly conceivable. Such access to information would help children - but how would it's use be regulated to ensure it wasn't employed as kiddie porn?

They would need to be isolated, such as a trade embargo/blockade as long as the nation did not surrender. They were an industrialized nation and depended on imports at that point, so the cost would have been catastrophic to the civilian populations. Such a situation could have lasted for a great many years, and turned Japan into what North Korea is today.

They need to be able to call "Contempt of Congress" and send the guy to jail for the night. Of course, that would never be abused... It's just really, very sad. Maybe they are trying to drum up more "you lie!" contributions.

I just want to be clear on something with regards to the thoughts you've compiled in that statement. 1) Einstein among others, did use intuition to lead towards great breakthroughs. However, you must accept that they discarded a huge number of intuitive theories as well, because they could not survive even their own scrutiny. Had Einstein blindly trusted his intuition, we would never have had the theory of relatively or special relatively, because he'd have spent his life trying to convince people of his earlier, faulty concepts. Through scrutiny, and the scientific method, he was able to discard the intuitive but false ideas, and remain open to new ideas that contradicted his older hypothesis. If you want a great example of a scientist with brilliant intuition, and probably the best example of someone unfairly criticized, I would recommend researching Nikola Tesla. The man was absolutely brilliant, and even designed an alternating current motor while still a student - he was heckled by his professor and accused of trying to build a "perpetual motion machine" which had nothing to do with his design. By the same token, you should research some of Nikola's failings - especially his wireless energy transmission ideas. They were absolutely genius, but failed for very basic reasons and it is now well established the principles were flawed for any sort of real long distance transmission of electrical power. Imagine for a second, if he had been critical enough to realize that in his lifetime - what he could have achieved if he wasn't chasing that impossible goal? He very well could have come up with another method for the same thing on sound principles but the world will never know because the certainty that allowed him to bring so many great inventions to life also became his curse. 2) Remember that Einstein, when he conceived these thought experiments, rightly classified them as such. He did not argue with people "But history will prove me right!" when he did not have the math to back it up. With humility, he saw his ideas for what they were - ideas. He worked with them, tested them, tried to falsify them, tried to make predictions with them that would lend weight to them, and eventually build sound mathematically solid theories with them. He was not an advocate of "Cowboy Science" and just thinking things up and calling it reality. He was committed to the rigorous works needed to demonstrate the validity of a theory, and showed humility along the way as he developed his ideas. Please remember that the majority of criticism people face here is directly proportional to the claim made: If you have done a thought experiment, and wish for help to see if your experiment is self consistent, you will be well received. If you want to know if a hypothesis is consistent with current observations of phenomena, you will also be pretty well received. Of course, you may not like the answers you get - the internal logic of your idea may be faulty or a hypothesis may expect observations that contradict actual observations made of the universe at large. However, if you are simply asking those questions, people will respond pretty well. On the other hand, if you have a theory you believe is true, yet it contradicts known observations and you insist your theory is accurate you will be asked to reconcile these issues to satisfy your insistence. At that point you are not refining an interesting idea and testing it but making the claim your idea passes all the tests. If you take the criticism personally and get emotional, you'll get some rather frustrated responses. I want to point out if you meet this sort of resistance, you are not following in the footsteps of Einstein - I would bet my last dollar he'd be critical of both your theory and your methods of arguing as anyone here. Never overestimate what you have and never get emotionally attached to your ideas. All great scientists have thrown out more ideas than they've kept. A great many no one ever saw because they were disproved by themselves before they ever even made it to an open discussion. That, is how I would recommend dealing with your ideas "falling in here" within the "pits" of PS&S.

Well, I want to say something in support of your devil's advocate remark, or more accurately, share some words: relevant part starts at 6:50 to 8:50 (the end) It's a standup comic (and very NSFW language, probably offensive to many people) but sometimes that's where you find the most honest observations about third rail topics. On the "arguments against" side (angel's advocate? ) It's worth noting that on the causation != correlation front, we should be aware many people do drive better at BAL 0.08 than a lot of legal elderly people drive at 0.00 - yet, we punish all drivers under the influence equally due to the correlation that the majority of that demographic are hazards to others on the road. Lets take this thread to something a little less "third rail" and consider a hypothetical website that offers subscriptions to view "videos of crimes." People can upload videos (either captured as observers, or captured while committing crimes) and people pay money to view them. Included are rape, viscous beatings, even rape/murder and torture. If someone goes out and sets a guy on fire and films it, and making money off of it, are the viewers who pay for it responsible in some way for the crime? If you steal the content and don't pay for it, does that really make you less complicit? If you view it for free and increase traffic (using an ad revenue model) are you less complicit? The question becomes, when a crime is committed on the assumption of compensation visa vi an audience, does becoming part of that audience make you involved in that crime? You become entwined in the motive. Even if you don't pay for it, they expect the more people who see it, the more people liable to get "hooked' and pay for it, via ad revenues or subscriptions. Every viewer on their site for via viral distribution increases the value of that video, and thus increases the incentive to commit those crimes to create more valuable videos. I think this is the real key issue in child pornography and while we may allow knee-jerk reactions and outrage to be enough to justify the laws against it's viewing, if we explore the issue further we could find an interesting discussion on the nuances between censorship and complicity in criminal activities.

I didn't mean to misrepresent the issue - just highlight it, sorry if it came across as one sided. I obviously no one would send a bill to dead person on purpose but it's still quite a kick to the ribs for the family when their already down.

Just to say "wow" on this one: http://www.news10.net/news/article.aspx?storyid=69832&provider=top&catid=188

Well, that's the sort of mentality that leads to war crime tribunals. I am certain you don't mean to carry it that far and there was nothing established that a nuclear weapon would constitute as such - but the blanket statement as you phrased it could be taken to extremes. Of course, it's still very stick of a topic even to this day.

Why should it matter? Should you only be compelled to pick up lifeboats from a fishing boat, but not an cruise ship because it's just a bunch of 'recreating' yahoos? I would love to see some statistics on "how much idiots cost the rest of us" in terms of total healthcare/rescue dollars per year, in relation to the federal budget. I would be willing to bet that the cost is as trivial as the cost of tossing a life preserver to a drowning individual Sure, on a technical level you don't have to and no one would expect you to put yourself in harms way to do it, but isn't it the right thing to do? I have to reiterate regardless of whether the victim should be stuck with bills after the fact or not, I am very much against the denial of initial care regardless of whether they can afford it - you just can't make those sorts of determinations. A known terrorist could show up in an ER with massive injuries and later turn out to be a planted agent. You just can't make those life and death calls on the spot. In terms of cost distribution for catastrophic random events I don't personally see a big difference between getting hit with a boulder while hiking and getting diagnosed with cancer, or jumping off a pier. It's fair to debate especially with things like mountain climbing where a climbers have some expectation they may need extraction and should be able to afford it or some sort of insurance. All in all though, I think the sheer fragility of life as demonstrated in this instance only strengthens the reasons why we should jump to help each other - it's a dangerous world and each other is all we got.

I think we are in agreement on that - I can't say whether in retrospect it was called for, I just don't feel qualified. Part of the problem is we are talking about tragedies stacked on tragedies of such scale that it is very hard to conceptualize - it's probably easier to grasp lotto odds. I would say that in order to prevent such choices in the future, we have to really struggle to prevent such conflict escalations in which such choices come up. To actually have to consider the choice so much would have already gone so badly that there is no excuse in letting it get there in the first place.

That is a fair point, and I don't want to sound cruel but I wouldn't mind putting an actual number to the "countless" people mentioned. I still think the suffering could easily have been higher if the bombs had not been used - both in death toll, and subsequent cost to civilians in a ever more resource strained Japan. The suffering would probably have been more short term - culminating in death rather than post-war lives with radiation exposure or birth defects - but I doubt it would have been on a smaller scale. Do you have any idea what the numbers look like for those suffering from radiation and birth defects? I'm trying to go by this: 410,000 is a lot of people. With reference to my numbers above, it would take a number of battles, or at least one serious one and sanctions to add up to that number, but I do think we'd have hit it before the war's end. I also feel unqualified (I feel we both are) to really pass judgment since being in the position to drop such a weapon or have to endure such a weapon is beyond my ability to relate. I still side with giving the benefit of the doubt to those that did drop the bombs, because they were fighting a bitter global war without very much information. It's an absolute travesty what occurred, and it happened in the middle of a travesty. The moral conflicts between protecting your allies and protecting your enemy from excessive force is one we really don't understand better today than when the events happened. It was an absolutely horrible thing to do, but I don't think it can be isolated from the context of the conflict. It would be nice if we could isolate nuclear weapons as the source of the tragedy - but they are not - the real tragedy is a global war that cost 50-70 million lives and culminated in two nuclear detonations.

Just a side note: I am strongly against the use of nuclear weapons. I think the proposed development of "Cute Nukes" as tactical bunker busters is an exceptionally bad move. Much like the use of depleted uranium in shells, I think the long term costs and impacts outweigh the military advantage in any sort of conflict other than an all out war for survival. I am also in favor of the land mine ban. That said, WWII was an all out, global war that was cutting nations around the world down to the bone. They were exhausted, tired, and fighting for their lives and the lives of their allies. The use of new weapon technologies to end the war as quickly as possible is something I personally cannot fault them for. I am sure Japan would have used nuclear weapons, as would any other nation should they have developed them first. It was an era of limited information and unknowns, including the weapons ultimately used.

If we invaded the the interior of Japan, isn't it reasonable to assume at least one battle on the scale of Okinawa would have occurred? If so, that alone would amount to the number of casualties. If we had continued firebombing, judging by the fact a single raid killed about 100k people I think it's quite reasonable to assume firing bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki among other Japanese cities would have resulted in a higher death toll than by the nuclear bombs. Starving Japan out with sanctions could have been attempted, but considering the historical impact on civilians (while much debated) I think it is fairly reasonable to make the leap that the death toll could have exceeded that of the nuclear blasts. Honestly, the only reason I can see for not dropping the bombs, is if the war could have been ended without further military action as any continuing commitment from Japanese forces would likely have rendered higher death tolls. But lets call that unproven. Lets say I cannot possibly demonstrate with any degree of conclusiveness that the death toll would have been higher. It's a fact that while I can draw what I think are reasonable conclusions, I can't actually know with certainty. In light of that, we look at the choices they had at that time: not knowing how many would die if they didn't drop the bomb, and not knowing how many would die if they did. Every day more people die, and the Japanese continue to kill more people. This was a global war that exhausting all involved and killing millions of people - and they had a weapon that could help end it. Out of curiosity, would you have condoned a nuclear response if the Japanese had dropped a nuclear bomb on US forces first? Secondly, about Vietnam - weren't we taking sides within a civil war on that one? How do you "help" a country fight for it's land by nuking...it's land? Not to mention, for political reasons the Cold War made such a move far more dangerous. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Is there really any difference whether the weapons are nuclear or not? Does it really make a difference to the hundreds of thousands of lives ended if they involve fission or chemical reactions?

You can only win the Darwin award if you take yourself out of the gene pool, by physically rendering yourself incapable of reproduction or death, and by some action that implies a lack of cognition warranting being removed from the gene pool - by one's own doing of course. For what it's worth, people who laugh at (make fun of) the misfortunes of others and people with no empathy are not one in the same, simply people without empathy tend to also laugh at (make fun of) people's misfortunes. However, it's worth noting a lot of people who do laugh at things like the Darwins or jokes made at the expense of people's pain often just ascribe to the "nothing's sacred" mentality while still being fiercely protective and caring towards others. It's not like they'd stand around and laugh rather than help a person in a dire situation. Perhaps it's because there will be suffering regardless, that people make light of it to salvage some levity from the situation. Perhaps it's the pushing the limits on taboo that often creates a humorous reaction, which many comedians play off of. I don't think it's as simple as having one or the other though (empathy or cynicism) and like most human emotions it's rather more complex.

I really wonder if he would even qualify for the Darwin award no matter how bad the accident was - how many people do this every year without incident? Is it really that much more dangerous than half the things people do in the day? On the other note, I think every effort should be made to save him. I don't like the idea of prejudging people's activities to determine if they are worth administering emergency care. If his injuries resulted from an unprovoked brutal assault, would it still even be a question? Or is it an open question because we have passed judgment on whether he was foolish in the first place to be there? How objective is that judgment, or is it based on the emotional response of how "foolish" it is to risk going through that experience, after the fact and after the accident with no accounting for how rare such accidents are compared to all the people out there that do it every day without injury? If I were to agree that there is a "certain level of stupid" that implies a no-resuscitation order of sorts, I don't think I could ever agree that such a judgment could be made fairly and quickly enough to preempt live saving care. It may not be the case here but "Oh shoot, no one told me he was pushed - I would have treated him then" style facts can come pretty late in the game, and you don't have long to make corrections.

Safety systems are generally scaled to handle a certain level of threat, starting with the most likely and rarely going to the expense of rare threats. Are they protected against "solar storms" or "most solar storms" realistically?

Simply because this thread needs more wharglbargl: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1224858/Yes-scientists-good-But-country-run-arrogant-gods-certainty-truly-hell-earth.html Honestly I can't tell for certain if this article is satire, but it doesn't seem to be. The fact it Godwin's itself half way through raises my satire detector alarm, but that hasn't been a very good indicator as it used to be.

I agree, but I think it's seen as "sabotaging" their goals. Along the lines of "If you don't like their approach, don't join their cause" but to join an anti-drug agenda to soapbox the exact opposite is disingenuous. Of course that's not how I feel - I think he was hired to be objective, and now they are kicking him for being honest. People who are already very skeptical of any pro-legalization or evidence suggesting the health risks are small probably don't see it that way. I don't think the moral argument in favor of his firing is strong - personally I find it reprehensible. I would suspect that most of those that feel what he did was wrong, are skeptical of the science and concluded he misrepresented it. Something to the effect of sampling that physical health costs are less than alcohol, while ignoring that the mental and overall quality of life costs are immeasurably higher than alcohol and that the whole disintegration of our very society is held at bay only by our constant and ongoing war on drugs. If people already believe he is misrepresenting the science, then his motives are suspect - he is either naive and failed to follow the correct checks and balances that would have kept him from misrepresenting the facts, or he intentionally and maliciously misrepresented them. Of course I don't agree with that perspective, but with the right preconceptions I can see how people would find his actions morally objectionable.