padren

I really feel I want an answer to one counter-argument to your question above: Is it really the duty of the state to limit a legal term such as marriage to appease a single demographic? Is there any difference between the state getting involved to limit whom may be married as them getting involved to block a church from calling themselves a Christian Church? You could argue that Mormonism was not a Christian religion when this country as founded, is not "approved" by any traditional Christian faith, and that any Mormon who checked "Christian, other" in a form was committing fraud because they didn't check "Non-Christian, other." The state (wisely, in my opinion) decided the term was large enough to encompass both Mormons and those who felt Mormonism was unchristian. The stance was "you don't have to consider them Christians, but you have to let them to consider themselves Christians." Now, same sex couples have come to the table, and argued a well enough case that we do agree (mostly here) that they do deserve all the benefits of marriage - yet some groups and individuals oppose to themselves being called married because their type of marriage was not recognized when the country was founded. (Some groups oppose even benefits of course, but with regards to your comment we are talking about providing all the benefits without the name) How is preventing "same sex unions" from being called "marriages" any different than allowing a single demographic from bullying the Mormon Church into being a church "with all the same benefits" that just isn't allowed to call themselves a "Christian" faith? They would get all the same benefits of any other religious group - just they would be denied that title. 1) Do you feel the state has the right to tell Mormons they can't call themselves a Christian faith, because some other established Christian faiths consider the term "sacred" to them alone? 2) Do you feel that is in keeping with our nation's philosophy of diversity? 3) Can you offer any reason why that is different from SSM? To me, this gets to the heart of why the term is so important, at least in my mind.

On my way to get coffee today I did something I've never done sober - walked into a church for something other than a wedding or funeral, in this case because there was a blood drive. I filled out all the forms, and on the one question "have you ever had sexual contact with another male, ever in your lifetime, even once" I checked yes as, I had once. I was asked some followup questions "was that a one time occurrence?" Yes... "Is that something you'll repeat?" No. It was the only question that required any conversation as based on every other question I was pretty much the ideal donor. And.... that one answer equates to a life long ban - I am not allowed to ever give blood in the United States. I was told by the individual that he was sorry, and that most people including himself consider the restriction ridiculous and that there is a lot of effort going into repealing that and hope to within the next ten years. I am an organ donor on my driver's license but I guess they'll have to drain them dry first when they take them so to ensure no one catches the "evil" that flows through my veins. Is there any rational reason for this? Do the majority of people just lie on that question? The irony is I would not even walk into a church for any reason just a few years ago - I still don't agree with organized religion, and consider the Catholic Church specifically to do more harm than good (in my opinion [just sharing my perspective, not trying to debate the argument or assert other's should agree]), but one of Obama's speeches turned me around with regards to the idea that many religious organizations wish to and do contribute to do important charity work and no two people are so different that if they are both trying to do something good that they cannot work together. They were hosting a blood drive, which is something I support and so I felt I should meet them half way (instead of wait for a non-religious drive in my area when donations are needed now anyway) not because I support their organization but I do support the cause they are sponsoring. But, despite no tattoos, prostitutes, needles, medications, orgies, risky geographical adventures and even being straight (not bi) I am banned for life due to a single event in my late teens over a decade and a half ago. Am I wrong for considering this completely insane when we have blood drives specifically because we need donors so we can um, save lives?

Naturally no, not by definition. Not sure why you'd ask that in such a manner, it's pretty self evident. However, like just about anybody they can say things that are, and it's fair to examine that when it appears they are. Naturally yes, and many people do oppose it. We have an entire system of government dedicated to proposing and opposing plans that is designed (in theory at least) to sponsor healthy debate and expose flaws in the arguments for or against such plans. Shouting over a president's speech to a joint session of Congress is not part of that system. Unless I missed Obama say "I yield the floor to Rep Wilson" under his breath there is a whole system in place for taking turns in speaking that he bypassed - one that he himself relies on when he has something he wants to say. We even accept filibusters as part of our system - even though they do nothing but allow through the letter of the law to ensure all action grinds to a halt. It does have a place and we do respect the law, so we accept and expect that in the Senate. Imagine how it must have felt to be trying to advance the Civil Rights Act and have the entire Senate stalled for 57 days through filibuster? If we can maintain cool heads and work with people under those conditions, we should at least be able to keep a cool head and let the President finish his speech before heckling him.

Another nice thing is it puts ISPs in the position of having the duty of making the net accessible, not clean in the eyes of some subjective yet loud demographic. As the internet becomes the predominant means of accessing information (eclipsing TV, etc) it could be pretty deleterious if groups tried to push boycotts around to get ISPs to "do their job" and block anti-American content. The idea seems bizarre to me, but a lot of bizarre things have gained traction that I'd never believe.

Honestly, I think the easiest way to boil it down is socialism provides consistency at the expense of efficiency, and capitalism provides efficiency at the expense of consistency. Markets are volatile, business compete and even intentionally attempt to eliminate competition without thought to the upheaval caused to those that depend on the competition's services. Even more so, businesses adapt, attempt new strategies and either succeed or fail - sometimes spectacularly. At a macro scale the volatility more or less evens out as a wash due to the sheer number of businesses, though some crashes as we've seen can have catastrophic impacts on the entire world economy. I am not saying that makes capitalism "worse" or "evil" or "bad" but it is a real world factor. In contrast, socialism is able to provide some level of consistency, but causes stagnation, requires constant input to fuel innovation against massive resistance (instead of being a natural by-product), and limits choice. Where capitalism has some 'really bad apples' that create localized collapses, the homogenized nature of socialism tends to ensure that all failings and faults are systemic - usually countered enough to prevent complete collapse but pervasive enough to drag down every aspect. Take education for example - some private schools have horrible staff due to cronyism and such, others are excellent. Public schools have a lot of good teachers but the issues with the unions (as discussed in other threads) has a tendency to make 'the issue of bad teachers' a rather systemic one. The issue of being able to "just fire the bad teachers" is as much a problem in New York, as it is in Texas or California. However, it does tend to create consistency and if we had no public education (collected no taxes for it) and it was all private the level of education would be far more volatile. Even if the average student scored higher that way than under our public system, the disparity in range would cause a lot more problems overall than we have now. We have decided as a society that education (like defense, and many other things) requires the security offered by consistency over efficiency. By far the best systems are hybrids. We have socially supported fire departments, using gear purchased and manufactured in the free market that are certified by socialized regulations. Innovation may be slowed somewhat due to red tape, but not nearly as much as if it was a all socialized and without nearly the 'highs and lows' of if it was entirely unregulated and based on the free market. They are just two strategies that have different characteristics and have less to do with "huge ideological wars" and more to do with tools at our disposal to use together in the smartest ways to solve problems.

Just to ask - is there any real reason to call a distinction between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples that do reproduce (and have, going back some time) through a third party donor or adoption? Why would raising, feeding, loving and educating children as parents be less important than whether the DNA came from both parties? I just have to express as I have in previous threads on this topic - it is not "Six of one, half a dozen of the other." because same sex couples are not trying to interfere with a conservative definition of marriage, just to allow their definition to coexist within the law. I see a large difference between restricting a term and broadening a term to encompass more people who already use it. Honestly that's like having a big controversy over the legal definition of "religion" because Catholics don't feel Protestants should be able to use that word, and should have to carry a different title legally (even if the same state benefits were to apply) because it offends their bigger, older, more "sacred" religion. Maybe "heretical faith" would be good for all non-Catholic religious denominations - separate but equal. If a given church wants to say marriage is between a man and a woman only they are protected by state law to maintain that and would never be forced to marry a same sex couple. Any legal action would immediately be dismissed because of state protections of freedom of religion. Therefore, when that same church wants to reach across and meddle with someone elses marriage and tell them (who do not even associate with that church in any way) they can't marry and that the state must use their own definition of marriage exclusively instead of inclusively it's not a matter of an equal split - that's overreaching pure and simple. To use a overlapping chart with those big circles - legal marriage is a big circle, and all the happy people from the most conservative baptists to same sex couples and even atheists are little circles inside that... or so it should be as we have a tradition of being an inclusive society. Summary: saying "we should be in the circle too" is very different than saying "the circle should be for us only" and thus not a matter of "Six of one, half a dozen of the other."

It looks like there are two topics that are getting overly intertwined: 1) Are there any rational secular reasons to oppose gay marriage and, if so, what are they? - we haven't heard any yet. 2) Does opposing gay marriage for non-rational or non-secular reasons automatically cause one to be bigoted? - We seem to be going around in circles on this, while trying to answer #1. As it was mentioned "We are all entitled to our beliefs, and we don't have to defend them to hold them" is true and a genuinely good thing.... no one should be capable of forcing someone else to change their mind simply because that person can't logically defend their belief at that time. But Mr Skeptic, here's the problem: Yes, you can hold the belief that marriage should be between a man and woman only. Fair enough. No one can take that from you - but, it's a belief that interferes with the lives of other people. If you said "I believe marriage should be between a man and woman, but others believe in SSM so they should be allowed to act on and call their unions that too." then your belief would no longer be one that interferes with the lives of others. But, if you feel your belief should allow you to define the limits in other people's lives and yet not feel you should have to explain how your belief can be defended as a rational and necessary then it is very fair to examine whether your belief is bigoted. No one is asking you to dismiss your belief - but you can't define both it's content and it's nature. If examined you can clarify and state a case and you don't have to say "yeah I guess I have to accept it's bigotry" but you can't just say "I don't have to explain it and you must accept my word that it is not bigotry." Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSide note: I do believe it's possible to irrationally be against gay marriage and not be a bigot. Theoretically, you could believe that aliens are among us and are bigots - and will wipe out all gay people on the Earth if they are allowed to marry. Since no one can hear there transmissions other than you (thanks to the old school fillings in your teeth) you can't just go around and say "I oppose your right to marry because otherwise aliens will kill you!" and it may break your heart, but you have to oppose equal rights to protect them. It's exceptionally irrational, but it's not bigoted. Insane yes, and out of the scope of any argument here, but since the question was posed I thought I'd take a shot at it.

That "state's loot" is a pool that exists by the labor of heterosexual and homosexual individuals alike, to provide a safety net to the state's citizens. If firefighters refused to put out the burning buildings of gay couples "cuz they're the devil's own" would that be any different? And debated it should be. With arguments and logic and facts - not bigoted immobile declarations of what is sacred and what is not. That is nonsense because it's a series of nonsense examples - a businessman can refuse to hire a man because he's under qualified, but not because he's black. Occasionally you get sticky situations where ethnic background, physical capacity or gender impacts qualifications... a person with lower grades from Kenya may be a better "liaison to the Kenyan office" than a guy with slightly higher marks from New Jersey.... a woman may be less physically capable of meeting the demands as a firefighter than a larger, stronger male... a paraplegic may not be qualified to be a lifeguard. However, there are discrimination lawsuits brought out when someone is qualified and is discriminated against solely due to their ethnic background or gender. I can't help but to call the "girl at the disco" a red herring of such a deep shade as to require IR goggles to see clearly - are you saying that all discrimination law has no more merit than an argument that a girl should be forced to kiss everyone if she kisses anyone? Do you truly believe all discrimination and movements for equality (suffrage, anti-slavery) are as ludicrous as that example? Or do you feel they are sound in merit, and that girls should kiss everyone? I would like some clarification on where you stand there.

Not to go down this road of debate in a SSM thread (one controversial topic in a thread is a enough to fear the Blue Text Of Death could appear at any moment) but I would like to highlight a few differences: 1) Whether you like it or not, the 2nd amendment is debated still to this day in terms of the limitations of the right. Some of the reasons to deny someone a concealed weapon may be sound (they are in court, on chargers of murder, and have threatened the judge) and others are quite debatable - but they are being debated. If you find opponents that simply use the statement "I just think the 2nd amendment is for non-concealed weapons. That's just how I will always see it. " then please do point out they are a bigot! Keep in mind very few gun regulation proponents are like that - they have heaps of data that may or may not apply but are ready and open to debate and defend their stance, which can be overturned. 2) What is the point of citing examples of the bigotry you have had to suffer? It sounded like an attempt to say "The other side does it too, just on other issues" so as to be more dismissive and more apathetic in a "hey, it happens, what ya gonna do?" sort of way. At least, that's what I heard. I'd prefer to stamp out bigotry on SSM as well as in firearm regulation. The only reason anyone should have to fight for a right is to overcome a difficult debate based on reason - never to overcome bigotry.

Just to be clear, I was making a point regarding the Democrats and Republicans, ie their leadership and general party stance - not about the fringes on either side. While I do personally feel the Republicans have some responsibility in that they fan the sort of flames that result in doctors being shot (just an opinion and a whole other subtopic) I don't think you can really blame a party for how far some fringers that happen to be on their side of the general spectrum tend to go. If some guy started shooting capitalists and openly declares Stalin his hero I don't think that would have any relevance towards liberals in general, anymore than the opposite should be true. Regarding bombs and federal buildings do these guys count: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29#Activities_and_Suspected_Activities Again, I am not disagreeing with you in general and I am definitely more concerned with violence from the fringe-right than fringe-left.... just saying you can't paint the main parties with the same brush unless they condone those fringes. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedPangloss I do appreciate those photos though I don't understand the Oscars' relevance. Regarding the 2004 DNC, he was with Jimmy Carter who brought him as a guest. Not sure what that's about, but I hardly saw Carter making political hay out of an association with Moore at the time. For all I know they are friends or something - let me know if you have further details though. The two photos of political relevance I'd say were of the 2007 health care briefing clearly timed to his movie, Sicko and with Gavin Newsom, (San Fran mayor) discussing the city's universal health care program it seems. It does appear he has some weight with Democrats so I will definitely recognize that, though not hero/savior status of course.

Just more followup information: Here's Rep. Mike Pence defending Rush Limbaugh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49CiA0RJ1Fk&feature=player_embedded Then there's these comments by Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18049.html Gingrey responded with: ...which was followed by an apology on Rush's show: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012809/content/01125107.guest.html Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Actually I was responding to this: While I agree with the first part I had to point out I disagreed with the latter. When left leaning individuals try to point out the vitriol on the right we are often accused of hypocrisy because "liberals are just as bad" when in opposition. I am not saying you or Tripolation was making that accusation of hypocrisy - but I do feel the equivocation is inaccurate. If it corrects an inaccuracy it's useful. After looking up his sales numbers, I'd have to say a lot of people do see his movies. I can't really speak to the demographics, but I will say I don't think the Democratic Party's leadership would have any issue distancing themselves from him publicly especially regarding remarks such as the "Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil... You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy." comment and I don't think any Democrat leader would be publicly apologizing to him immediately after. Moore may be a "lefty" and he may be filled with vitriol but he really is on the sidelines as far as the Democrats are concerned. He does not enjoy nearly the degree of insider and esteemed colleague status that Rush does with Republicans. While the fact that many republicans apologize for their statements about Rush does say they may not genuinely approve of him or his methods (since they do say things they later do have to apologize for) they still backpedal and effectively condone his position of divisiveness and vitriol. I think that's a difference that warrants distinction.

First, I didn't say that Limbaugh was considered the "Conservative's Savior" but instead challenged Pangloss to provide case in point accounts to back up his assertion that Michael Moore was considered a savior and hero to the left. I did imply (stated, actually) that Rush is considered favorably by Republican leadership, to which I can cite the rather well known event: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19517.html A second example of "nuts on the right" of course is Palin, who has conjured issues like "death panels" up from the ethers. Has the right finally stopped taking her seriously?

I am definitely open to this possibility, I just haven't heard anything of it on the left. If there are links to moderate left politicians hailing him as a hero and savior I am very interested. I agree that it only underscores what republicans are doing, but I am trying to compare it to Democrats while they were in opposition as a comparison to try to get a bearing on whether this is "standard opposition behavior" or pretty specific to Republicans at this time. They both can be sore losers for sure, but I still think the level of vitriol from official channels are higher in the GOP than they ever were during the Bush years. I could be off and it could be as simple as my own misreading of the left - I am actively trying to prove that's the case and have been for a while - but I just can't find the evidence yet.

That's my point though - Michael Moore is a far fringe element that couldn't buy a photo op with any mainstream Democrat. I don't think anyone in politics today wants to be associated with him or his views. When Michael Steele simply points out that Rush isn't exactly the living pulse of the GOP he's forced to apologize. Anti-Bush antics may have been popular with all sorts of fringers just like protesting the WTO G8 summits are - but what antics were embraced by Democrat heavyweights and leadership? Of course there is no monopoly on ridiculous behavior by either party - it'd be impossible to maintain a monopoly on such a plentiful and infinitely renewable resource - but I just don't think the scales match up against the actions and endorsements of the Democratic Party during the Bush years compared to this. In fact a lot of the whining I do recall that came from the left was directed at the left for compromising and passing bills with Bush. Even that though was nothing like what is happening today with the GOP. I hate to say it I just can't find equivalent comparisons. I honestly would be happier if I didn't believe this and have been rather resistant to the idea, because I hate taking my critical queues from the choir - but I can't see any other way to add it up at this point. I do welcome evidence to the contrary though.

1 & 5: If it doesn't explain all instances, how can anything in this discussion isolate useful facts that could give a more accurate explanation? What exactly do we have to go on? 2: Wouldn't we need that new information first? We don't discount theories due to anecdotal stories but due to an accumulation of empirical evidence to the contrary. No one even needs to claim we understand time well to point out the total void of theories that could explain some sort of natural accurate capacity for clairvoyance in human beings. 3,4,6,7: You can ask all you like for scientists that have done credible studies on this but you missed the whole point of my post: This is not a field of research that can be studied with any degree of credibility. If you want a credible scientist to do credible research and has published a peer reviewed paper he'll have to have setup some very rigorous standards that cannot be met through simple anecdotal accounts. You may as well ask for a scientific study on the actual number of angels that can stand on the head of a pin. It doesn't mean that there aren't angels nor that there isn't a specific number that can stand on the head of a pin... it just means no one is liable to ever publish a credible scientific paper exploring the topic in any meaningful way. I hope that clarifies my position.

When I read the title of the thread I saw myself going and, it turns out I was seeing the future! How can anything not be conjecture on a topic like this? You can't verify any of the anecdotal evidence to separate out people who truly believe they experienced such an event and those just claiming to. You also can't verify those that experienced it did so without retroactive memory mucking. We also have no way to establish any control constraints as we have no idea how many false hits have go unnoticed on a daily basis. You may want to talk to people who have done real studies but real studies require controls that you can't get from this topic - all you could get honestly is a collection of interviews. If you want to discuss this topic productively you probably want to get to some sort of truth in the matter - but do you really think that is possible? Out of all the range of possibilities we could conjure up and decide sound fair do we really have the tools to know if we are on the right track? If we can't even verify the base information and all we can do is produce conjecture that sounds good that cannot be tested or falsified then aren't we more likely to come to a wrong conclusion that is less accurate than saying "I have no idea" how to explain it? Is it quantum physics or is it angels whispering in our ears? Some "super soul" connected to a gestalt source of all knowledge? Time echos? My point is we have next to no objective information, no way to provide context, and no real set of mechanics that could explain the alleged phenomena. That has no bearing on whether such a phenomena exists or not - just whether it can be discussed and refined productively.

Sorry, that sounds like equivalence. I used to believe that but honestly, no - I can't anymore. While you do have some liberals calling for investigations into Bush and Cheney's activities it's nothing compared to the investigations that went into Clinton. Most notably the leadership of the Democrats aren't railing on Bush the way the leadership of the Republicans railed on Clinton. We do have liberals that 'stir things up' just like there are conservatives that do, but the leadership on the left distance themselves from those liberals, whereas republican leadership actually publicly apologizes when they make comments that Rush doesn't represent the core of republican values. Tell me if I am completely crazy but it seems that while a fringe left often "whines" it is disowned by the Democrats, while the fringe right (not the entire fringe, but a good portion that is both whiny and not quite wearing tinfoil and calling Obama a lizard man) is embraced. What is the "left" equivalent to the tax tea parties, and which members of congress and the senate supported them? Where is the mischaracterization of Bush's policies on par with the "Death Panel" fiasco by liberals of equal equivalent weight to Palin within the party? I just don't see the two parties as equally balanced in their strengths and faults swapping positions of power. The vitriol is very intense and much embraced by the conservative leadership - far more so than it ever has been on the left in recent times, including the Bush administration. I'd feel better if I could see examples proving me wrong but I just don't see that as the case.

Capitalism is only as moral or amoral as the people that utilize it. If the majority of people cared about sweatshops, the homeless, the environment, trade inequities, inhumane meat processing plants, and all the other "evils of capitalism" enough to sacrifice and pay more somewhere else it would be largely self correcting. The fact is we could adopt a system of forced morality and we would still support the policies that brought us most for the least effort and simply justify why it is ethical to do so. Right now, we blame the system instead of ourselves - or "everyone else" that is dastardly enough to shop at Walmart and do all the evils we would never do - but to be really honest it is still our combined failing and not the fault of the system. The only real issue is we accept our society won't act morally and blame that on the system, whereas if we didn't we'd have to make up excuses just as ridiculous as China's "moral imperative" to invade Tibet so we could both feel good about ourselves and not actually make any personal sacrifices whatsoever. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedJust an additional note to be clear on this point: It's not like capitalism has allowed backdoor dealings and secretive illicit activities to create the inequities we are all upset about - these dealings and activities happen in front of our eyes. We already know the effect Walmart has on small local businesses, we know the conditions most animals are exposed to in the food industry, we know about sweatshops, we know about the lobbyists and Wall Street/Federal Reserve/Government Oversight rotating doors... and we don't care enough change our habits or apply the pressure to our elected officials. Maybe most people don't know just how bad meat processing plants are, but they know they are bad and they really easily could learn more - they genuinely don't want to. The few things people aren't aware of really are the result of intentional avoidance of the facts because they would be potentially disturbing and they really don't want to deal with it right now. What if everyone was willing to sacrifice just one hour a day to keeping capitalism moral? In any given seven hour work week, that means you either say, work an extra four hours (to spend slightly more money on goods you find more ethically sound), and dedicate three to research and/or writing elected officials, or in some breakdown like that. How much impact would one hour a day have if everyone who said they cared was willing to dedicate it? I really just don't think we can blame the system.

Personally, I find all theories on ghosts that I've encountered to require too much "faith" for my taste. Whether they attempt to explain ghosts as the remnants of the deceased or group hallucinations they all seem strained and require too many assumptions. It may be most logical that Jill's explanation is the most likely, and that photographic or audio recordings are either faked or are the result of misinterpreted mundane causes... but I can't say such a conclusion is conclusive. It's something of a defense mechanism but anytime a theory requires an assumption about the nature of an unknown factor it immediately becomes purely an exercise in intellectual entertainment.

We already have technology to do this: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37192 Granted, the range is very limited and the amount of data that can be conveyed is very limited, but the energy it detects can be amplified by the system I am sure. Once you capture a signal it's trivial to amplify it. Of course, if you mean amplifying thoughts to transmit them from within the brain you'd have to account for the energy required to amplify them, which I highly doubt the brain would be capable of conduit to any such organ or brain center.

First, the fact a university does studies in Pseudo Science does not imply that the studies are thus, anything but pseudo science - especially when they have not achieved any scientific results that would elevate it above pseudo science. If you feel the reason for this is that they are using outdated experiments, why not take it up with them? Simply repeating that it is "ridiculous" to claim ether does not exist when all modern physics works on the basis that there is no ether does not lend credibility either to the idea that telepathy can operate through ether nor lend credibility to the idea that ether exists. Threads on ether come up regularly and have yet to provide any persuasive arguments in favor of ether. The fact you find it ridiculous that ether doesn't exist has no more weight than the arguments of the very brilliant Nikola Tesla that it is ridiculous to claim that splitting an atom can release energy. His failure to understand atomic energy had no impact on the future of Nuclear energy, just as your failure to understand contemporary physics has no impact in a debate regarding ether. Sorry, but catch up - or at least try to understand why it is anything but ridiculous to acknowledge that ether is an exceptionally weak theory at this point in modern physics. It does you no favor in your attempt to communicate with others when you ignore mountains of empirical evidence that contradicts your conclusions. Your ideas may mean a lot to you but they mean nothing to anyone else unless you supply evidence to back up your arguments. Merely implying we are ridiculous repeatedly is not going to persuade anyone. Can you explain how any of those centers are supposed to work? What is this magical signal that all of our technological sensors fail to detect, yet the brain apparently can? We can detect far more emissions and energy waves, sounds, pressure fluctuations, individual photons from the Deep Field Objects, x-rays, gamma rays and minute gravitational fluctuations... IR to UV to sub atomic particles in massive colliders through mechanical instruments than we can through our biological senses. Secondarily, you are taking about the transmission of thought - which contains a huge amount of data. Just communicating a single image requires a lot of data as you cannot get around the issue that compression only gets you so far in reducing the quantity of data. To enhance compression to any real viable degree you need shared algorithms between the two points in the communication and there is no evidence to suggest this can occur independently in two minds - the way in which we may mentally compress. It is at least feasible to suggest that when you imagine a "specific parrot" you may have an image of "the first parrot you saw" modified to resemble the "specific parrot" to create the end result image with high compression - yet without seeing the same "initial parrot" you could never communicate that image using that compression technique. You'd have to "send" the whole image of the new parrot, which can only be compressed so much. The more data you want to transmit at once, the more energy is required. There is zero evidence that any part of the brain can even handle those energy requirements, let alone generate any kind of signal with it. Quite simply, the amount of energy required in any given brain center would quickly disperse throughout the rest of the brain and probably fry the whole thing. Therefore, you cannot have telepathy that works in any manner consistent with classical physics. You would need some sort of means to transmit information over large distances with low energy requirements that is not subject to noise disruption. It is fine if you believe this is the case but it is errant to claim this is a logical conclusion. You may find anecdotal evidence compelling, or you may find it fits with how you feel the world works or what you feel humans are capable of or explains strange idiosyncratic experiences you've had but none of those are scientific logical reasons you can share with the scientific community at large. All of the arguments I've made by the way - are simply isolating one issue: energy required to transmit a large quantity of data coherently. I am not even touching the issue of if the brain has a center capable of intentionally creating a trough or peak signal of any degree capable of being detected even one meter from the subject. Nor am I addressing the issue of a center actually being able to detect a trough or peak. I am simply saying that the energy requirements needed to send any coherent signal of any complexity with any degree of integrity are too large to even channel to any center of the brain without overloading the conduits that could transport the electrical energy. Neurons are not rubber insulated lines of copper wire. If there is some form of telepathy in humans - which could be the case - it is not the result of some biological mechanical system explainable through our current understanding of physics.

Capitalism is very democratic except for the fact that more capital = more influence, and the ideal of democracy is equality of each member regardless of capital. It's really a misnomer, as even if there was no wealth at all you'd still have better speakers, and more connected individuals wielding more influence. On the whole though - it sounds like (and I haven't seen the movie) a really stupid quote. I honestly believe any society that is corrupt when leaning towards free enterprise will be equally corrupt when leaning in any other direction. There is no system that can keep people honest unless the people choose to demand honesty from their leaders - which is just as easy (or hard) under any framework. My own feelings aside the quote strikes me as "classic Moore" and he really has come to bother me over the last few years. I used to love his work on TV Nation "back in the day" which was genuinely edgy, daring and thought provoking. Now, he seems to preach to an invisible choir with a condescending tone and simplistic blanket remarks that imply if it's not equally obvious to you, that's your problem and he shouldn't be inconvenienced with having to make his case to someone as hopeless as you. Granted I haven't seen this movie, so I have to withhold judgment. I have a hard time being interested in anything he has to say anymore though because every time I see something new he puts out it's just so laden with self righteous fail it makes me sick. Every time I see something new he considers his views so self evident as to not require any evidence, vetting or caveats - and this guy was my hero in my late teens - so I am pretty much done seeing anything new he has to say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Ghosts

John, first please consider "the discussion" you are referring to. Without evidence, you would really just be discussing the "stories" that are shared that give the impression that ghosts may exist - which are second or third hand, unverifiable and unrepeatable. It is fine to discuss those stories but those will not be scientific discussions as they don't contain any scientific information to evaluate. They may encourage someone to get some equipment and go try to gather evidence at an allegedly haunted location and that is also fine - it may be noted however that such discussions have lead to such endeavors in the past repeatedly with no valuable results and as such it will be very hard to get excited by the news someone else is going to give it a try. The most conflict that comes up from such discussions is when someone takes those non-scientific stories as "too compelling" to disregard and aggressively tries to convince others of this in a science forum style community. It is okay for someone to decide they feel the stories are too compelling to disregard, but that's a personal decision and not a scientific analysis. When they become aggressive and obstinate in their arguments and resort to accusations of character flaws as the only reason others may not draw the same conclusions it becomes a very ugly discussion overall. It also happens a lot, especially around here. While it is possible to have polite discussions on these topics it is so rare for them to not become derailed that they are dissuaded entirely. The key though is to understand the nature of the "discussion" that can be had at any given moment. The evidence of mermaids has lots of non-scientific anecdotal stories, but every scientific endeavor to find them has come up empty. The only evidence we have about anecdotal evidence in general is the studies on the general reliability of such evidence, which suggests it is not very compelling. So honestly, all that can really be discussed scientifically is that there is not much to discuss scientifically, which is generally not what the topic starter wants to discuss.

Are you trying to claim that The Onion, at the time their article was written, didn't have the resources and technology to write a 'real moon landing hoax article' and faked the whole thing? If you are suggesting the entire organization conspired to fake the whole thing you need to provide some proof for your assertion - this is a science forum after all - you may buy into the 'moon landing article hoax' hoax but I'm not ready to throw on a tinfoil hat just yet! Sorry, couldn't resist