zapatos

Assuming the star lost no mass in its collapse, the gravity field strength as measured by its companions remains the same. From the perspective of a nearby star, the distance to the source of the gravitational field has not changed: it is the center of mass of the now collapsed object, which was also the center of mass of the star. The change in gravitational force is noticed in the distance between what was once the 'surface' of the star, and what is now the 'surface' of the compacted mass. If you remain outside the diameter of the original star, you notice no change in gravity. If you move inside the diameter of the original star, since you are getting closer to the center of mass, you will notice a stronger gravitational field.

You apparently failed to thoroughly read any of the posts in this thread.

Correct. Why would it? The Constitution is a legal document, not a moral document. Nonsense. A logical proof citing the Constitution is acceptable for that version of the Constitution. The logical proof may fail if the premise changes (in this case, the Constitution), but that is the case in ALL logical proofs. Never said it was. It just means it is a legal thing. That is not quite what we are saying though. We are saying "We should be allowed to legally carry guns because the constitution says so". And that is NOT a logical fallacy, because the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, does say that. Not at all. The Constitution is a legal document, and in the US, along with interpretations by the Supreme Court and its inferior courts, decides what is Constitutionally legal in this country. In this sense it is not legally fallible. It may be morally, or socially, or monetarily fallible, but then it is not a moral or social or monetary document. If the Bible says it is morally right to stone adulteresses, then for those who use the Bible as their moral guide it is morally right. You can't just say "that doesn't make it right". You have to specify in what way it is not right. Something can be morally right and legally wrong at the same time. To address your edit (I didn't see it when I started this): It would alter my belief that we legally ought to be allowed to have guns. It might not alter my belief that we would be better off with guns.

To Phi's point, maybe the creature evolved a heavy metal content in its teeth and can generate a spark as it spits out the flammable bile.

Not true. It is only a logical fallacy if the person or group is not a legitimate authority. In the case of the SCOTUS, in matters of Constitutional law, what they say goes. If they say it is a Constitutional right to carry guns, then it is a Constitutional right to carry guns.

Yes, I think it would mean the right to carry a gun around. But if we are going to only use these words then we are lacking quite a bit of necessary context. Those words make no mention of who, what, where, when, or how. You cannot simply assume 'at the airport or anywhere else you wish' anymore than you can assume 'only while hunting'. Only using those words will never work. Unless it is specifically mentioned, someone is going to have to use their judgement. The language may not be vague, but the context is.

It is not politically independent in the same way it is not family life independent, or education independent, or sex independent, or social status independent, or any other aspect of your life independent. But it is not essentially political any more than it is essentially family life, or essentially education... Fortunately it is more valid, and that is why we don't teach creationism in school, or exclude Muslims from our country, or ban flag burning, or have access to automatic weapons, or ban abortions, or change all of the above every time the politics changes. Did I make that argument?

Completely agree. This of course doesn't mean that the justices are not independent. If things are done right, the will of the people has nothing to do with the outcome of the SCOTUS.

I don't know what you mean by that. Are you saying the decisions are dependent on the conscience and belief system of the justice? Does it matter, as long as the jurist is independent? Under what circumstances could anyone's decisions on any topic be 'independent'?

Yes, the decision looks like it was made by nine independent justices. As I said before, following your conscience and belief system does not make you dependent on others. The only thing it makes you dependent upon is your own conscience and belief system. It is no surprise that Republican appointees will be more likely to vote like many Republicans do. That is why the Republicans selected them. But once the justice has been confirmed, the party that selected them has no more influence on them than anyone else does. The justice is free let his or her view change over time, and vote on issues according to that modified view, without fear of retribution.

You have an unusual take on the definition of 'independent'.

But you realize that the Supreme Court disagrees with you, right? I suspect most any right granted in the Constitution can be legally regulated. An obvious example is that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and claim your right to Free Speech cannot be regulated. Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court is wrong? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/17/the-second-amendment-is-all-for-gun-control.html

I am not quite sure what you mean by 'parts of the universe developing now', but if you mean that there is more universe 'now' than there was 'then', that is incorrect. It is true that, for example, stars have formed recently, and that means this star is newer than that star. But the mass/energy that comprises all stars is the same age. While the mass/energy of the universe has changed form and structure over time, there is no new mass/energy in the universe now, that was not in the universe at the time of the Big Bang. In this sense, the entire universe is the same age.

Yes, the life appointment matters very much. It means they are independent from outside influences. Following your own conscience and belief system does not mean you are not independent. In addition, it is not unusual for justices who have been selected for their past conservative (or liberal) rulings to begin to vote against the wishes of the party responsible for their appointment.

Sometimes I think we grew up in the same town but in different states.

Paper is made primarily from pulp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulpwood

Trees for pulp wood is grown and harvested just as any other crop.

As I grew a Ginkgo in my yard from seed, I guess I'd kind of like an explanation of your statement, if you don't mind.

Why do you say that?

I see now. Thanks for the explanation.

You may be right. I am trying to think of a way around this but am having a tough time coming up with something else that would work. All seem to involve some sort of lock and key. I find this one to fit well with prior restraint. According to your link, prior restraint is censorship, and censorship includes self censorship. Make the penalty harsh enough and people will self censor. A good example is child pornography on the internet.

Yes, actually that makes more sense. If you do it while building your foundation I can see where it would put your whole argument at risk.

If it is more like soccer or basketball then purposely fouling in certain circumstances is expected and taught by the coaches. Often times the penalty is a smaller price to pay than you would pay for not fouling.

I've never been on a debate team so I don't know how you are judged, but if you are trying to make it sound like you won an argument, you may want to consider using logical fallacies. If you understand them well, you can use them to your advantage, while being very subtle about it. Logical fallacies are often very effective. That is why they are so often used.

That is an excellent argument and, in my mind anyway, makes clear the difference between the threat due to guns and the threat due to bomb making information on the internet. I have no counter argument to that, and agree that given our current situation, there is no reason to attempt to regulate bomb making information.