zapatos

That's interesting because I know a lot of people who don't do drugs because they are illegal. Myself included. If I do illegal drugs I have a good chance of being caught because of random drug testing at work. If it wasn't illegal I'd probably smoke periodically. I liked it in my younger days.

As a parent of kids in grade school I absolutely loved school uniforms. You knew exactly what they were going to wear everyday. It made the mornings much less hectic. This wasn't obvious to me until I actually had kids and went through it. And since the members of the school board were always parents of kids in school, they kept voting to keep the uniforms year after year. The benefits to the parents were obvious to nearly everyone. In high school my kids didn't need to wear uniforms but at that stage in their lives most of the kids wanted to conform. So while they didn't dress in uniforms they always wore similar clothing to that of their peers.

Yes, it seems pretty clear that Intelligent Design is just creationism dressed up as a way to get around the ban on teaching creationism in school. But I think ID specifically makes a point of leaving out any mention of who did the designing (could be aliens or even Canadians). And if ID never mentions God, then it seems to me if you get fired for belief in ID, you cannot make the claim that you have been discriminated against due to your religious beliefs.

Is there any way to measure which is happening? For example, if I was an outside observer and noticed that two galaxies were further apart from each other today than they were yesterday, is there some way to determine if they are further apart due to expansion or motion or some combination of the two? Can you measure the decrease in density of the universe between those galaxies? If not, is it theoretically possible to measure the density?

I thought the whole point of developing the theory of Intelligent Design was to eliminate religion or God as a component. If that is true then I'm not sure a firing for belief in Intelligent Design could be considered firing for religious beliefs. And if I remember correctly, in the US there aren't many things you can't be fired for if there is no contract involved. I think you can't be fired for your religion, sex, age, race, and national origin. Most everything else is fair game. When you told him that, I hope you didn't put it like this: Specifically, can you provide a link to an article or study or something (other than a movie or a personal unsubstantiated anecdote) that supports your claim that:

A commonly accepted definition: Addiction is a primary, chronic, neurobiological disease, with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. It is characterized by behaviors that include one or more of the following: impaired control over drug use, compulsive use, continued use despite harm, and craving. Physical dependence is a state of adaptation that is manifested by a drug-class specific withdrawal syndrome that can be produced by abrupt cessation, rapid dose reduction, decreasing blood level of the drug, and/or administration of an antagonist http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/163/11/2014-a

He is trying to find the missing answers. I just don't think he checked with you yet on what the important questions are he should be spending his time on.

I agree with all of this. Wouldn't be snobbish or elitist at all. And that is because we can objectively measure who of the two is better at heart surgery. If the objective is to have the patient live, then after the salesman kills all his patients, we can say the heart surgeon is better at heart surgery. But what is the objective of music? Is it to be complex? If it is, then I'll agree that more complex music is better than less complex music. For me there are many things that I use to judge the quality of music, and complexity is only one of them. If I had more music training at an earlier age then maybe what falls under my heading of quality music would be different. And so you should. But I think you would be doing it because of one of the things you mentioned, such as having identified them as having a similar listening skill to yours. If I was a singer, then perhaps the ability of the singer would be the determining factor for me in determing the best music. And that would determine who I'd respect. And if the thing that most moves me about music is the message/poetry/awesome guitar solos/whatever, then the person whose suggestion I'd be more likely to listen to is the person I've identified as being similar to me. I respect the skill and cognitive abilities you have, but they don't help me enjoy the music any better. So.... To me, the music I listen to is better than the music you listen to, because I like my music. But I wouldn't think of telling anyone that my music is objectively better than theirs.

If I understand you correctly you are saying that a cloned person would pass for the original to the rest of the world. I don't think that is correct. If you know identical twins you would not confuse one for the other once a conversation began, or even by observing their actions. And if they were twins who did not grow up together they would be even more dissimilar. And of course unless you cloned at birth the clone wouldn't even be the same age.

Which I take to mean that it is not meaningful for someone to declare that a particular genre is of higher quality, since it is only higher quality in their unique frame of reference. If someone tells me that their particular genre is of higher quality than mine because it is more complex and they are able to appreciate that complexity, that sounds to me like they are saying "my brain is more developed than yours as far as music is concerned". I can see where that attitude might come across as snobish.

Can you please expand on what you mean by this? Are you suggesting that a 'spirit' would move from the dead body to the new body?

I think this particular outrage comes from a general anger. Some people are angry so they look for something to rage about. If the law had been written such that everyone would be taxed and the government would choose what healthcare people received, the rage would be that "the government has no right to make that decision for me! I should be allowed to buy the insurance myself!". It's amazing how acceptable some things are when 'my' political party does it, but it's an outrage when 'your' political party does the same thing.

I get the impression that you feel as if complexity = quality. While I believe I can come up with something much more complex that anything out there now, I feel confident that it would not be considered quality work. Complexity can add to quality, but so can simplicity. Both can also detract from quality.

Another problem with physical punishment is the unintended consequences. While your intention in delivering punishment may be to stop a behavior, you may unintentionally be teaching the child that the behavior should not be done in your presence. They may get very good at deception, and decide that hitting is a good way to get someone to do what they want.

Book to read - "Into Thin Air" by Jon Krakauer Thingy to build - Something of wood that you need/want in your home, such as a small table Hobby to start - Birdwatching Program to program - Sorry, can't help you there. Book to write - "The best and worst of the people I've known"

Ah, I see. Time itself has a beginning. Or to be more specific about when that was, it was at the beginning. But if I want any more detail than that I need to go elsewhere. Ok, thanks!

Why is more fuel required? I would have thought it would be about the same. For example, I always thought that walking a mile or running a mile burned about the same number of calories since you are moving the same mass the same distance (ignoring thngs like efficiency of movement).

When was that?

How did you come up with sterilising them for punishment? Would it be just as reasonable to blind them, or cut off a hand, or make them bald? I mean, why punish potential offspring?

Do you know of any studies to back this up? I wasn't able to find any. I would have thought it was the other way around. If you don't have to compromise you can take bold steps. If you do have to compromise you more or less stay in place. (Although I guess this is good if you like where you are.)

Sounds like what my dad used to say to me. And what I think about my son's music (although I try not to say it out loud). While there is some classical music I enjoy, whenever I go to the symphony I invariably feel as if I am going to doze off. Not that I think my music is better than classical. It's just that different things affect people in different ways. I saw some girl moved to tears by some singer on American Idol. He sounded like a howler monkey to me. And I assume way back when, some dad said to his son, "Who is this Mozart guy?! Sounds like he can't make up his mind on which instrument to feature!!".

Used by whom?

But as I mentioned in post #4, I get a similar feeling from the Blues.

Being fed irrational crap might even help keep you mentally sharp as you try to reconcile the crap with reality.

Do you have anything to back up this assertion? Or did you just find that this was a good opportunity to bash religion?