Sayonara

Well, if it is for a laugh then my original question doesn't apply. If they are programming physical laws as a means of deriving the effects of said physical laws then they are pretty much wasting their own time. See "biology is not a science" debate.

Google for anthropometric ratios.

Well, you either start your simulation with an intitial state, which includes a fixed set of rules that may or may not spawn rules of their own, or you simulate a universe with an expanding set of rules which are constrained by an "outer" set of rules defined along a time axis. In the first instance, you will only find out what "could be". In the second instance you will find out very little that you didn't know already.

I did say "universe" and not "scenario". Generally when we say "the universe" we aren't leaving out the time axis for a quick laugh.

Maybe you should just stop seeing it as an invasion of your privacy then.

I'd be fascinated to hear why you think that me having an ID card is an invasion of my privacy.

This is nothing to do with the thread, but surely if you are sophisticated enough to simulate a universe there will be very little you can learn from it? ps - I am pretty sure we have done this topic

Oh dear god.

No. It's an amorphous solid. What is the point of having threads if nobody is going to read them before they post?

I'm a member of the general population, and I really can't see why it is "bad for me".

That's quite enough of that ta.

Okay cool - I have been meaning to read that anyway, so if it has any TM in it then that's more reason for me to squeeze it into my book queue

Hurrah for God!

Well, I don't particularly want to get involved with defending that quote too, but it seems to me that where you have said "not capable", it might be wiser (seeing as you are positing this as having been suggested, rather than stated) to use "not willing" or "not likely". Which might be defensible, but we'd have to know more about the situation.

See previous post.

That is no defence for what? Are you contending that the laws that are put in place to defend people's rights should not be used to defend people's rights? As far as I am aware, there are none. However there are laws that prohibit discrimination in such institutions, and many of them are central to the philosophy and origins of the American way of life. It has been the case through much of the thread. Rather than seeing it as playing ball, I suppose one might see it as making arguments or counter-arguments that relate to those of others. That was not the distinction you originally asked for. You are now officially moving the goalposts, so to speak. Many of your arguments seem to be predicated upon sexual or reproductive activity. Correct me if I am wrong - this thread is getting a bit confused.

Oh wait, I see what's happening here. You are adopting the notion that because I agree with one part of Glider's argument, I am attempting to justify the argument as a whole. I don't necessarily disagree with him, but my explanation as to why troops on the ground may have a poor view of the overall picture was to illustrate how it is not really to do with intelligence. It was not supposed to involve any comparison between what the soldiers and the general public know.

Or you just don't understand what I wrote. Re-read thread. It really is not complicated and duplicating the information is not necessary.

Those afforded to the involved parties by the law. The specific ones in question will obviously depend on the situation. Because the law requires it. Honestly, if you're just going to arbitrarily wave away inconvenient constraints on the discussion such as the social framework in which we are operating, you might as well be talking about carrots. Everyone loves mind games, well done. Again, this thread isn't discussing something that only takes place in your head. We are discussing the issue within the framework of the law as it currently stands in the United States. If you want to challenge such laws, this is not the place to do it. You asked for a reason why homosexuality should not be classified with bestiality and paedophilia. Whether or not you want the answer in the form of "a principle" is pretty much irrelevant. I shouldn't have to provide a defence along with my answer - if you have reason to believe that the answer is somehow not good enough, then you need to present your counterpoint before I can actually respond. You might also want to consider that homosexuality is not simply a sexual act.

Yes, I did. Notice how it's not the same as what you told me I said? I did not claim to understand any particular strategy, nor does my point require that I do. I am not sure where you are trying to go with this. It's really perfectly simple.

I did not claim (1) and I certainly did not imply (2).

Ah that makes more sense. I wondered because you posted straight after me.

I didn't mean to suggest that they are denied access to information, more that the joint chiefs of staff, politicians and military commanders don't sit them all down and tell them what role their orders will fulfill in the overall strategy.

Firstly, you aren't following Jesus by taking biblical messages and using them to excuse bigotry. In case you hadn't noticed, Jesus was a pretty laid back kind of character. Secondly, if you really do live by the bible, then you are committing a cardinal sin. Judge not lest you be judged. Thirdly, you are confusing homosexuality with the act of sex itself, which is a pretty stupid mistake to make when you're condemning about 500 million people. Wow, even your spelling mistakes are the same as Penticostal8's. This is a thread posted in the Psychiatry and Psychology forum, discussing the science of triggers for homosexuality. Narrow-minded interpretations of passages taken from religious texts are in no way invited, required or welcome. If you want to tell people about how the way you live your life doesn't allow any flexibility for dealing with other people's behaviour or disposition, or if you want to dictate morals to people, take it to the Religion and Philosophy section.