Sayonara

Does this life form need to have evolved on a star, or does it just live there as a colonist? If it is supposed to be native to the star then I am going with SkepticLance.

And you know this because...?

I do not believe I mentioned morals or trust at any point. This has to do with the high-level usefulness of the changes to society as a whole, and nothing else. IMHO encouraging a civilisation to be more aware of its own diversity and the details of how it arrived at the here and now is far far more useful than sneaking in a specific religious doctrine via the back door, and I am certain that some part of you agrees with that. Absolutely, but scepticism does not require denial. You have ignored some of my questions, by the way.

I disagree strongly. The specification of a property of a thing does not magically overshadow the function of that thing. You are being misleading. The bill does not aim to make any curriculum "specifically focus on" anything; it merely requires some of that information to be made available at some point during the course. This is a world away from ramming "gay history" down peoples' throats. Because everything is connected, and we should want to learn from the mistakes of a past society that may have derided or elevated inventors, artists, etc on the basis of their personal characteristics, so that we can all better our own society together. Society is not "us lot, oh - and the gays and midgets too I guess, as long as they are quiet". It's everyone. Well, bear in mind the "useful" bit came from me, not the proponents of the bill. Their aim is to stop the trend of passively making homosexual contributions disappear, which - need I point out - is reactive and not aggressive. The requirement is to make the information available, not to force people to learn it. In lessons at all academic levels, varied ancillary information is given out to put people and events into context. Randomly deciding that one particular kind of information is "irrelevant" pretty much signals bias as far as I am concerned. If we are in a position where the law has to be used to get some things taught, then we should first be questioning how the situation came to be in the first place, not objecting just for the sake of continuity. I think you are perhaps objecting to a set of circumstances that have not been proposed. I sincerely doubt that pupils will be flunking their exams because they don't know who is straight and who is not.

Allowing the persistence of a scenario where an event does not arise is the same as preventing that event from occuring, in effect if not in intention. IOW, sometimes inaction needs to challenged just as much as action does. It's not "gay history", it's a more complete view of everyone's history. Because there is a sociological benefit to be had - especially in schools - from being shown that gay people have something to contribute. It's no different from highlighting the contributions made by women, back in the days when they really had a hard time of it. There is a very worrying trend which is evident everywhere (even on this site) among young people who are determined to stick with the belief that homosexuals have "no purpose" and are of no benefit to society. Not only does this harm the homosexual community, but it also harms society as a whole by increasing divisions and reducing the likelihood of interactions that could lead to benefits for everyone. The bill may well help to dispell such cancerous beliefs. If I happened to mention that Einstein was straight while giving a short introduction to the man in the first lecture of Relativity 101, are you going to accuse me of focusing the lecture or the course on his sexuality? No, of course you aren't. That'd be making a mountain out of a molehill, wouldn't it?

But there's clearly a difference in the motives behind the agendas of creationists (your example), and the parties who want the contributions of homosexuals to be recognised. Wanting to "run over [you]" doesn't seem to be on the cards with this bill. Does this mean you don't think that a better and more widespread appreciation of the role played by a minority group in helping a society to develop is going to improve things for anyone? I'm sure I need not point out that having an agenda is not automatically a bad thing. I'm not saying you are wrong per se. I just don't understand where your objection is coming from.

That is not the purpose of the bill. From the link in the OP: In what way?

All of whom have the same right to a voice under your system of democracy, I have been led to believe. Isn't that a product of your political system? Why not adjust the amount of leeriness based on the merits or shortcomings of the particular circumstances on a case-by-case basis, instead of tarring anyone who wants to change something with the same brush? Your original question was "So what exactly is the difference? Why would one be legitimate, and not the other?" You've already identified what the difference is, and it's fairly clear that whether or not either cause is "legitimate" is pretty much down to point of view. It depends who you ask. That Randy Thomasson in the article you linked to certainly wouldn't describe the bill as legitimate.

That sounds like a massive leap to me. What intermediate steps are you envisaging?

Yes, but one imagines that would be a large part of the ideal answer anyway.

Any system capable of managing information might display intelligence, regardless of whether or not it is comparable to human intellect. The requirement for life is an invented one.

I thought you were theistic. Have you changed your views since you joined, or is my memory going?

God has no place in this discussion. Bjaminwood: if you continue to insist on dragging god into our scientific discussions, you will receive an IWOP (Inconsistent With Our Purpose) warning which will result in an automatic and permanent ban. I would urge all users to use the "report post" feature to highlight such off-topic posts. You will receive less fervent criticism if you simply describe yourself as "remaining unconvinced" instead of "sceptical", without having to sacrifice any convictions. Everyone loves to bash sceptics, even if they are rationally correct.

No.

Because the contributions of gay people to society are not mythological? If there is a dearth of acknowledgment in the present curriculum then that needs to be addressed in exactly the same way you'd address a curriculum that (for example) disregarded the work of black politicians. If they are going to go over the top and hand over a disproportionate slice of lesson time to it then you'd be quite justified in querying that, but not by likening it to creationism. You're better at arguing than that Pangloss

Intelligence is, loosely speaking, the ability to store, analyse, and manage information for future use. We know many animals do this, so the question "how is it measured" isn't really that crazy.

The difference is that the latter is merely one of many components of the former, and a seemingly optional one at that. But that is all off-topic.

Yes, apparently nettle soup is quite nice.

That was quite amusing

Maybe he is not acting outraged, but titling the thread "omfg rofl" doesn't exactly indicate appreciation of civil responsibility.

You're, like, the funniest and most original poster ever.

I read reports every single day of people who have been wandering around waving knives about or firing airsoft/pellet guns out of car windows. They are invariably surrounded by AFOs and arrested, and the less bright ones usually get the baton gun or taser used on them. Both of those hurt mightily. Exactly why they do it is a mystery. Perhaps "on private land with the permission of the landowner" is just too much effort, or maybe "it was funny" outweighs "it's an offensive weapon" in their heads.

Can I remind all users that this thread is for common acronyms, which one is likely to come across on these forums and which may affect the meaning of posts. It is meant to be a resource. It's not for any old junk like "IAGTRNSL - I am going to Raymond's Now, Speak Later".

That should be the default answer for anything to do with MSIE and standards. <q> is literally a markup tag in that it defines the bounds of a quotation. It's more for resource content description than it is for styling, although some clients add styling information by default (e.g. enclosing the content in quote marks).

You should not be surprised by the response. If you discharged airsoft weapons in public in the UK you would find yourself surrounded by Armed Response Vehicles, and you'd almost certainly receive a fixed penalty. You'd probably also be done under the Public Order Act for causing alarm, harrassment, or distress to whichever member of the public called it in. This would result in a nominal file being opened which would remain on police intelligence systems for at least 3 years.