padren

While I dislike the idea of killing mice for scientific experimentation, when there is no other option but to keep watching people die I have to accept it. We already poison mice that get into our homes as they carry diseases and can make us sick. Killing them to prevent diseases in homes is okay, but not in the lab? It is a fair question to ask "where the line is drawn" I suppose but I certainly don't think it's drawn at mice.

Why are you so prejudiced against open marriages?

I would say if their arrests were not consistent with the way an arrest of a citizen would be, such as ignoring rights because they are not citizens - then I could say there's some modicum of truth in her argument. However, I don't think that's what she's saying. The other argument is that we abuse illegal immigrants by turning a blind eye to businesses make money by exploiting them (low wages, working conditions, etc) and then use the law enforcement wing to kick them back over the border so a fresh batch that don't know any better can take their place. While I think it's worth keeping an eye out to make sure this doesn't happen, I can't say I buy that it is either. I could see saying the focus may be less than even handed (maybe some are busting illegals as if they were crack dealers, while slapping the companies that hire them on the wrists) but really I can't give Pelosi any sort of a pass for those comments. If the law needs to be changed, it should be changed... but for her to take this tact is pretty dumb imo. Of course, I don't think I know a single liberal that doesn't consider Pelosi anything more than an embarrassment and basically one of those characters you'd wish would just shut up and stop acting like she speaks for anyone but a handful of wingnuts.

What would be on your filing form for taxes, if not "Single/Divorced/Married" upon removing "marriage" as a legal term? I've considered that approach and used to support it - but now I don't agree. Words may matter somewhat, but not as much as people. No one is asking you to call that "marriage" at all anyway. No one ever has. All anyone has said is "Why can't they call it marriage, if it means that to them and those that agree with them?" To some "priest" has a definition that is restricted to a male, and to others it does not. It doesn't matter what the term "priest" means to you or to someone else. You can have a female priest preside over your wedding in lieu of a judge, because the law respects that some religions support women in the priesthood. No referendum can take that right away - if the majority tried to impose what they think a priest is, the supreme court would overturn it. Why should this be any different for the term marriage?

So as long as there's another water fountain for "coloreds" and they get access to water too, there's no discrimination going on there either? How is your solution any different? That's a given, but we aren't talking about whether people are entitled to opinions. We are talking about tangible effects that can be measured and logically debated. I'm not concerned with opinions, just facts and logic. If facts and logic support the contention those groups are being discriminated against, then it should be addressed. We aren't talking about those groups so it's completely irrelevant to the conversation, as already stated in many previous posts.

Scrappy: * Blocking marriage from same sex couples = tangible impact on SSM couples. * "changing" definition of marriage to allow SSM definitions to exist along side non SSM definitions = opinionated resistance without tangible impact on non SSM couples. Right now SSM cannot be legally recognized, even though they still happen all the time and always have. That's a tangible impact of restriction. It affects those people's lives and that is not just a matter of opinion. Recognizing SSM does not change a single non-SSM marriage. It has no tangible impact of restriction. So how does your opinion trump tangible impact? At least when it comes to the legalization issue of marijuana it's the tangible impacts pro and against that get debated. Sometimes badly and not always by people that understand them well, but debated none the less. This allows progress within the debate, and allows the possibility it can be changed should new facts change the debate. In other words it's not a dogmatic decree of opinion. No matter how uncomfortable something may be for someone, if it's about law it must be debated as a matter of facts. Tangible impacts. If someone has the "opinion" life starts at conception that's fine, but if they want to change the law on that basis, they need to back it up with more than opinion. Facts are facts - it's a fact SSM's are discriminated against. Your opinion that they shouldn't exist anyway does not change that.

If I was contracted to build a bridge, and should it be completed on time I'd get a big bonus by contract...which I met - at which time the bridge collapsed due to my own endorsing huge risks that failed to pay off, caused the company I worked for to face bankruptcy only to have it saved due to state intervention and causing misery and hardship to huge numbers of people.... ...seriously, I should then go up and say "*ahem* well, since the company technically isn't bankrupt, and since I did complete the bridge on time..." Who would do that? How can someone expect to live in and be a part of the society that they let down to such a degree and still ask for their bonuses? I've let a client down once due to a huge issue in scheduling where far too many things hit the fan at once... I got their work done a month late, did it well and refused to be paid for it (it was only about $600, not a ton of work) because it was important to me that they knew that wasn't part of how I operated, and that it had to be a very rare circumstance or I'd go out of business. No one lives in a vacuum, and to take on responsibilities that you don't live up to that causes direct suffering in people's lives is not just a bad day at the office where you can be glad "at least you got your paycheck" at the end of it. I don't dispute the legal aspect, but I find that as part of a society on a human level it is unconscionable on their part to demand them. As a society we have so much faith in the law, nearly a whole nation can feel OJ Simpson was guilty of murder and watch him walk out acquitted and respect the verdict and even his freedom. Even if we feel a murderer was released it is far more dangerous to abide by the rule of law, and it makes all our lives better. Personally I am concerned about that faith when it comes to this crisis when the economy can crash, and the public can get saddled with these bills, and people just have to sit by and watch as these perpetrators collect on bonuses for bringing it about because that's the law. It certainly is, but where is the sense of security that the law is supposed to provide? Will this still be legal in 6 years if it happens again, where we just have to sit by and watch yet again? If people don't feel protected by the law, their respect for it will erode and these shenanigans are really hurting that I am afraid. It wouldn't be a problem, but it seems they have no shame. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I definitely agree this should be looked at more closely than the bonuses, if they are getting "double shored up" and doubly in full.

I found rather bad - it completely changes the argument to one Jon Stewart wasn't making, and then points out the obvious that it is wrong. Jon wasn't claiming that Cramer knew that in x weeks these companies would collapse, or even that the CEOs knew. The CEOs knew it was bad, but naturally they had the bias to believe it was manageable - it is there jobs after all to steer through adverse situations and come out on top. I don't think anyone suggested they dumped their stock Enron style. The problem with Cramer is not that he "made a bad call" because of problems he couldn't have foreseen - he chose to be non-critical and essentially hero worship these guys that he considered friends and colleagues who ran what he felt were reputable companies. Had he (or anyone in the financial news, really) approached the emerging situation as journalists that do their homework and engage in critical thinking then some better questions may have been asked that could have cast light on all this before it got so out of hand. Instead he sits next to Jon and pouts "they lied to me" like he's a schoolboy when he's on a news network advising people what is good and safe to invest in their money in. I think Jon is right, and that article is completely wrong: no one in the financial news industry acted like actual journalists. They acted like MTV fluff news casters that ask fluff questions so teens and oooh and ahhh at their favorite celebrity pop stars without risking anything meaningful may be said. It was pure pander facilitation between keeping sponsors and viewers feeling warm and fuzzy. No journalistic integrity to worry about shaking things up should critical questions be asked. I think that is what Jon is talking about, and from previous interviews I think that is an issue that bothers him about the current state of TV Journalism in general: It's become very selective to specific demographics of viewers and sponsors, and critical journalism becomes a far second to ensuring both of those groups feel warm and fuzzy*. * or afraid, or angry, or whatever the network's style is.

No one is asking you to change your definition of marriage. You can define it however you want - the only thing anyone is asking for is for you not to push your definition on others. Why does it matter what you define it as or even a majority? The majority of people in this country think L Ron Hubbard was a drunk and a con artist - not a prophet. Does that mean we should not legally allow Scientology? They all think it's a religion and personally it's one I don't like, but I don't need them to justify to me their beliefs. Why is it any different with same sex marriage?

Why is that an important difference to you? Aren't there a ton of other things that are commonly accepted that have a different definition to you as well? God, moral, Jesus, operating thetan... just to name a few terms that mean incredibly different things to different people. If those terms have multiple definitions and we can all live in peace with that, why can't it be the same for marriage?

Why should any one's definition be more important than any other's definition? There are many people who define marriage as a lifelong commitment - churches that will not remarry you if you get a legal divorce. That is that church's choice and that's okay, to each their own. As an atheist, I don't agree with the idea that divorce should be impossible. I would argue that if any state ruled divorce to be legally impossible, that it would be the pushing of a religious definition into territory it had no business entering. It is simply the difference between a religious and legal definition. Now, the only reason we have "marriage" at all is as a recognition of the natural tendency that humans like to form lifelong pair bonds. Just like in the animal kingdom. So, what happens when an individual happens to form pair bonds with the same sex, instead of the opposite sex, as also happens in the animal kingdom? Humans generally get married when they form those bonds with another individual - and here's a same sex couple forming exactly that relationship. Under any rational deconstruction of the term - how could that not be a marriage? The causes are the same, the feelings are the same, the rituals are the same - why would we call it something else? I could say "I consider sex to be an act between a man and a woman" because of some personal opinion, but if a same sex couple... well it's the old "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck..." argument - I'd be forced to reevaluate my opinion because it would be wrong. And as to the whole "no one's rights are being discriminated against" argument because homosexuals can marry people of the opposite sex just like heterosexuals... please reevaluate for a moment: The whole point of a marriage is "to become married to the person you have pair bonded with" and if homosexuals pair bond with partners of the same sex but are not allowed to marry - how would that be any less discriminatory than a state that tried to ban only heterosexual marriages, allowing only same sex ones?

I wonder who these people are that would rather sue than renegotiate their bonuses. I feel like you could take the peak value of AIG stock, find out how much their bonuses would buy then, calculate how much money those stocks would be worth now, and it would still be more than they deserved since what little that stock is worth now is propped up by the taxpayer. If it wasn't for the legal implications I really wouldn't be opposed to dragging them from their cars and leaving them tarred and feathered on the sidewalks. They should be entitled to nothing - their company should be bankrupt as a result of their performance. The taxpayers don't care at all if AIG goes bankrupt, it's only the fear of the whole industry completely collapsing that brought about any bail out money at all. It's like finding out the fellow you hired to guard the hen house was a fox when you walk in and find the walls covered in blood with no chickens to be seen, and when you are forced to buy more hens the bastard has the gall to walk up to you and say "ahem, I was promised 2 chickens as payment for this job - I will sue you if I don't get them." Personally I don't have it bad. I know someone who is unemployed and goes in for an interview, and find there are 150 people all trying to get one of the 15 positions advertised. In fact, he's being evicted as of today. I'm working everyday, and I still had to dance to avoid an eviction notice because at the time I still had $3000 in outstanding unpaid invoices for work done. At any given time that figure floats between $2000-$3000, and more than once I'd had to work not knowing if the money would ever come through while going to sleep and waking up hungry. For more fun stress, the house I rent is due to be auctioned off by the bank unless sold. But honestly, I don't have it that bad - it's a little stressful and could collapse at any moment, but it hasn't yet and I am still working. I don't mind working 3 days on a total of 8 hours of sleep for money I may not see to rush something through, because times are pretty tough and a lot of people have it a lot worse. Then you got these people threatening to sue or "walk and leave AIG to burn" who played a very large part in creating the whole mess in the first place. Who the hell do they think they are?? If they had their faces in the news, I wonder how many places they genuinely would not be safe. I don't think they should be harmed but I do think that if they insist on salting people's wounds simply because "well legally they can" they really don't understand how people feel. I mentioned the stuff going on in my life because while it doesn't bother me much - the moment I hear about these people having the audacity to threaten to sue it makes me angry, and I know that people who have it a lot worse are going to be a lot angrier. When a bunch of capitalists resolve to take bailout money from the state instead of filing bankruptcy, in my mind they are "resolved to endure the unendurable and suffer what is insufferable." It's endgame. It's the unthinkable, impossible scenario. It's time for them to eat a lot of crow, shut the hell up about it and say "thank you."

Well, it really depends on what it's wired into. The safest chip would only supply sensory data, so you could say, run a query, and get back visual data in the form of text. If you wanted video or pictures, the sensory data would include a border or superimposed visual identifier to show it's incoming data, and you are not seeing something real. Audio would be trickier, but you could include a sensation of some sort that basically lets you know what sort of stream is coming in. The key would be in that you could not get chip code updates online, only data - so any input would have to be in an acceptable sensory format or just not be permitted entry via the chip. This would be basically the equivalent of the "firewall" to prevent abuse. As you "assimilate" visual sensory data, it becomes "recognized" as knowledge in your mind. If the chip skipped your own sensory layer of data assimilation there could be a lot more room for abuse as the user may be sent "facts" that feel certain but have not actually been evaluated by the mind. I suspect that may be more difficult technologically as I am not 100% sure if any two minds really assimilate data the same way, or if the mind adapts until it has found a solution to that problem during early years of development. Also, to control a person, you need a lot of data - meaning a lot of data would have to be outbound as well as inbound, which a security layer could detect and trigger a temporary lock down, allowing the user to clear the security concern or report the infraction. If the chip would allow emotional stimulation it would probably sell well (electronic drugs) but could also be abused - someone hacks a chip to hit input that could stimulate endorphins for instance, then have a back door create false emotional stimulation to create irrational senses of trust or loyalty. Of course this all would be highly theoretical and depend on facts that are far from established so really it's all pure speculation at this point. I do think though, the first sort of chips of this nature may be at most, capable of giving you a visual impression of a mathematical result or type with your thoughts. If you haven't seen it yet you may find this thread interesting: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37192 They aren't implants, but sensors that allow for some pretty interesting "thought controlled interfaces" even in kid toys hitting the market this year.

I absolutely agree too. Personally I'd want to be sure an implant had been tested for some time, and 1) was completely standalone (could connect, but could store large amounts of data separately, perform math functions etc) and was designed to last a human lifespan without servicing in 99% of cases. Considering the effect of calculators on my math skills or keyboards on my writing, I really wonder what impact it would have if the system went offline unexpectedly. Being biologically susceptible to an EMP seems almost as unnerving as having part of my brain dependent on a corporation's ability to avoid bankruptcy. Secondarily, it would be interesting to see what age laws would go into effect, since a brain that learns to use such an implant while still developing could suffer major stunting of growth in natural centers that normally through stress learn to perform certain tasks.

Is there any way we could have "private threads" tied to social groups? We have the private messages within a group, but it's not the same thing. It would be really great if on the main forum page, there was a primary topic called "Social Groups" and a forum in there for each group you are subscribed to - and if you are not a member of any the section just doesn't display. That way you can see new posts right there, instead of going through the back alleys of your profile to check your "group" out for updates. One thing I think could really help is it would immediately alleviate the stress in "General Discussion" when say, someone wants to discuss religion from a historical or psychological perspective with a pretense that God does not exist. Instead of starting the discussion there and immediately getting into a defense of that pretense, if they are a member of the "Atheists Group" they can just post in there. We could also try out a separate group for "Philosophy" and if people don't play nice they get kicked from the group - far less severe than a general ban. Since they are private groups the posts wouldn't appear on the main page or to the general user base or public, so there should be no concern about causing unintended sparks. Of course, there are a lot of reasons why the old forum was removed so if the staff don't want anything resembling it I can respect that. If people like this idea, I would like to offer to help by writing the coding. A huge part of my professional work is modifying existing website software for clients so I am sure it would be well within my skill range.

One thing about Religion, is they've competed and evolved for a very long time, physically, philosophically and socially to hone exceptionally survival-fit memes. The means by which they impact a follower's mind is a combination of unintended mutation and thoughtful modification, but the end result includes some very strong propagation and survival skills.

The vast majority of Americans may feel that a priest must be a man. Most religions in the US also believe that. Since a priest can perform marriages, that means they have some special state recognition. However: Some churches allow women to be priests, and some religions always have. So what does the "views of the majority" have to do with this - should we ban women from being priests in the eyes of the law, because of some "majority" feeling that it threatens their own religion's priesthood traditions? The fact is they are perfectly happy to allow other religions to do their own thing most of the time. If they want female priests - as long as they don't claim it's their church that endorses it, they respect that other church's right to do things their own way. That means to me they get it. So please, what is the difference with same-sex marriage? No one is asking their church to endorse it, anymore than they'd have to endorse female priests if their church disagrees.

Here's a thought: Let the "legal" definition of marriage reflect that there is no legal definition of marriage: to some parties it may not be subject to divorce, to others it means only heterosexual couples, and others includes same sex couples as well: then people can live as they wish without any concern for the legal definition. The only factor then, is that to acquire legal recognition for the couple, they have to get a civil union license - not a marriage license. This license would have no religious connotations and be open to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. I think that would be ideal, but I get hung up on one factor: When you file your taxes, are they really going to change the word "married" to some cumbersome new term for "civil unioned" or just leave it as "married" and have that mean "legally married via a civil union" - in which case what has changing the terminology really done? I think marriage has already come to mean "or civil union" whether we want to admit it or not - people get married for all manner of legal reasons that have nothing to do with traditional marriage.

I really feel that it's morally wrong to cave to people of that nature who are just throwing toddler style tantrums. The origin of the word "Band-Aid" was a trademark, but it was not defended and now is one of the most famous cases of a company loosing a trademark when it becomes a common word. Marriage has been non-religious ever since captains and judges have performed weddings without invoking God. Religious conservatives could have made a case then, but didn't defend the term for religiously exclusive use - it has since become part of our shared culture and they can't just take it back now. Without even thinking about same-sex couples, the idea of conceding Marriage as a religious term is an idea I find disturbing. It also glosses over the rather ugly and entirely non-democratic mob definition where some define it as only marriage if there can be no divorce, others include multiple partners and minors, all only putting their differences aside to attack those they feel are vulnerable enough. Can they take on atheist heterosexuals that get "married" and win? Not a chance - but they can still rally just enough people to agree to keep the gays out. The idea of religious people getting to define marriage is already a contradiction - they don't agree on the term. Enough of them agree on what a few facets should look like to shift the definition towards what the mob can agree on. But who's getting a word in here? Does the fact that those shouting "no gay marriage" are louder than those saying "hey God likes gay marriage too" mean they should get the defacto right to say how people of other views on faith can define it? Marriage has come to mean something in atheist culture over the generations - I don't think any religious coalition has the right to take that away.

I agree 100%. A government "recognizes" what are seen as inalienable rights, and as part of it's duty to protect it's citizens, also protects its citizens' rights - when it's doing it's job correctly. Recognizing innate human rights and even putting them into language effectively is imperfect in practice, and will continue to be refined long into the future, but I do believe there is a philisophical truth of sorts at the core of them. /sidetrack

I was thinking that the government should stick to "civil unions" and not cover marriage at all, though I resent it somewhat because really it is necessary. I mean, I was married once, but God sure wasn't invited, and the idea of an atheist girl I know getting all excited and exclaiming "OMG! He popped the question!! I'm getting Civil Unioned!!" would be downright painful. But lets be honest, she won't say that, she'll say she's getting married. That's what everyone will say. Us atheists have been getting married for ages - why should we give up the word now? We've always known that "Legal Marriage" is one thing, and "Religious Marriage" (well, Jewish Marriage, Christian Marriage, Hindu Marriage, etc etc etc) is another. So really, I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as it was as simple as the State involvement in a marriage is you have to get a civil union license (no marriage licenses) and then you can go get married by a judge, ship captain, priest, or whatever floats your boat. So, as long as it doesn't "give" marriage to the religious and you can still get married as an atheist (and be considered married, check the 'married' box off on forms, etc) I'll be happy. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged For the record, the legal definition is already irreconcilable with all religious definitions, as all religious definition include God as part of a marriage, and atheists have been getting legally married for ages. Second: It would only restrict their rights of freedom of religion if a given church was forced by the state to perform a marriage they did not want to - which has never been suggested. If a same sex marriage before a judge effects the religious rights of Christians, then a Christian's decision to eat a ham sandwich in his own home effects the religious rights of a Jewish person up the street - and that would be silly.

My real question is: where does the authority reside when it comes to whether someone's beliefs are Christian or not? If in one church, a pastor gives a sermon interpreting a bible passage as one thing, and right up the street is another church that finds that interpretation abhorrently incorrect - can the second church demand the state revoke the former's status as a religious enterprise on the grounds "it's not really Christian" and therefore, not a recognized religion? Christianity has splintered so many times in the past we have a huge number of flavors scattered all over the country and around the world. Each splinter really only has one argument in their defense "We are Christians that believe XYZ, even though [insert larger Christian organization] may not." Why is it "XYZ" can apply to something as radical as the teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr. then why can't it apply to same sex marriage while retaining the definition of being Christian? My point is if we (not that I think we should) give religion so much weight as to own the definition of marriage, then why does "Mob rule" get to stamp out the idea of gay marriage, but not that Joseph Smith was a prophet? It's worth the side note: As far as I know all religions consider a marriage to be between two people and God - so our current allowance of atheists to be married by judges already breaks the religious definition. I am not arguing that we are using the religious definition, just that if were then it's still flawed as an argument against gay marriage.

Mr Skeptic, can I just quickly ask: Do you mind calling a same sex marriage a Marriage when it's performed by a priest, in a church that supports same sex marriages? If there is room in Christianity for both Catholics and Protestants, why not for both those churches that abhor same sex marriage and those that condone it?

Do you really think the current market is simply a reflection of "corrected" post-bubble numbers? It seems to me that we are in the trough of the correction, and that we may not be at the bottom. When you have an over inflated market bubble pop, the market first over corrects to a non-stable low and comes back up to a stable middle value. It does not look like we are at the bottom of that low yet in the natural correction swing, which is the whole reason we are trying to artificially lessen the degree of the continuing negative dive. How do you extrapolate from there that the dems are just inflating equally volatile bubbles?

I already use that for packet sniffing, but I am thinking of something more like the Task Manager process view with networking in/out statistics, so I can see if any given app is hogging the bandwidth, and if a slow transfer is due to my bandwidth maxing out, or the remote host being slow.