zapatos

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.

I did no such thing. I asked you a question. I was presenting no attitude and had no ulterior motives. You seem to be making assumptions or reading things into what I said. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man I did not disregard any key points you made. I did not present a superficially similar position. I did not misrepresent your position. I did not quote your words out of context. And most importantly, I did not attack a variation of your position, concluding that your position was false/incorrect/flawed. I asked you a question. (edit for clarity)

Did I mention that I was trying to get others to justify their positions? You gave a general situation or rule ("The distinction is critical because one can actively kill and the other does can actively do nothing.") and I asked how a specific situation ("Do you think that the difference between giving a handgun to a criminal versus giving directions to the location of a handgun to a criminal is a critical distinction?") would be viewed using your general rule. You'll have to explain how asking you a question to better understand your position is a straw man. If there are exceptions to your rule, then perhaps you should mention them up front instead of criticizing me when I try to find out what they are. I'm starting to get the impression that you are just trying to be contrary.

Do you think that the difference between giving a handgun to a criminal versus giving directions to the location of a handgun to a criminal is a critical distinction? One can actively kill and the other can actively do nothing. The directions to its location would have to be followed. I get the impression you think I've been disingenuous this entire thread. I'm sorry you feel that way. That is a good point. Although I wonder if since regulating information is so much more complex, that going after low hanging fruit, such as obvious references to 'pipe bombs' or 'maximizing carnage' might be the way to start. But don't we often regulate things that are one step removed? For example, it is a illegal to conspire to commit a crime, even if I have not taken any steps to execute the plan. I wasn't suggesting that gun control is advocating restricting knowledge about their manufacture. I am suggesting that selling guns is potentially dangerous, and information on how to build a bomb is potentially dangerous. In that sense they are similar. Why should we accept one potentially dangerous situation and not another?

Is that the only way to do it, do you think? I imagine that since we are talking about information on the internet that software could be used to flag questionable material. Heck, even just passing a law making it illegal to teach kids how to make pipe bombs might be enough to deter some content from showing up. I imagine if you got some smart people together, they could come up with a reasonable approach to limiting some type of information without it being too restrictive. McAfee knows lots of things about sites that come up during my Google searches. Perhaps something like that will be able to flag sites for 'nail filled pressure cookers' instead of just porn or viruses.

I sometimes forget to reiterate my point, and it tends to get lost in all the back and forth. In this thread a number of people who seem to me to be strong advocates of gun regulation, objected strongly to the idea of regulating bomb making information on the internet. I was curious how they justified their stance, considering that both can be used for fun or sport and both can be used for death and destruction. I wanted to know what the fundamental difference was between the two different positions. If the answer is that one is information and one is hardware, then I would like to know why that distinction is critical. If the answer is that 'lots of people already know how to make bombs', then I would like to know how that is different from 'lots of people already have guns'. If the answer is 'it is hard to draw the line on what bomb making information is', then I would like to know how that is different from drawing the line on what a safe magazine size is. Up to this point I had not taken a position. I was simply trying to get others to explain their positions. But for the record, my position is that a reasonable level of regulation on guns, and information on how to build a bomb, would probably be prudent. Nothing will stop a determined criminal, but I don't see any reason to make it easy for them.

Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but most of us have the same eye. Do we really need a poll to determine which of these women are beautiful and which are not?

Like most of us. You'll probably get as many up/down votes because people agree/disagree with you, as you will because your post is really all that great/bad.

Okay, just a misunderstanding. I thought we were talking about all guns. The reason I asked it because I was trying to make the point that things can have more than one purpose. Something may be manufactured for one purpose (killing) and used for another (shooting targets).

The 'like' button on your post is so that any other user who is signed in can give you an up or down vote ON THAT POST. It counts toward your reputation points (you can see them in your profile). Any one person can only vote one time on any given post. You cannot vote on your own post. You cannot disable it. Some love it. Some hate it. Some don't care one way or the other.

Of course not. That is why I don't understand why we should apply good judgement to guns but not bomb making instructions. If information is dangerous and guns are dangerous, why regulate one and not the other? That is essentially the question I am asking. You said "The purpose of a gun is to shoot living things." Just so I'm clear, you feel that the purpose of a target rifle is to "to shoot living things"? Or perhaps you are saying that a target rifle is not a gun? So then you feel the purpose of a nuclear bomb is to blow up, and not to deter the bad guys? It does seem fairly minor when compared to nuclear Armageddon. Then again, so does every single thing we discuss on this site. On the other hand, when you compare it to the normal injuries one encounters at a foot race (pulled muscles, blisters, etc.) it seems fairly significant.

I didn't know I was. Not in my opinion. I never said it should be. Yes, I know.

It is completely arbitrary in terms of gun control with the objective of making people safer. There are judgement calls and subjectivity in deciding that nine round magazines are acceptable and 10 round magazines are not. I am talking about being consistent. Being in support of gun regulations while opposing 'bomb making instruction' regulations strikes me as being inconsistent.