divagreen

I agree with this...I am steadfastly against corporatism overtaking the government. :D

I agree. So why do people use the argument, and I have heard it often, "We are not animals!" as a springboard for billboarding their own sense of morality? Especially as it relates to homosexuality, bisexuality, any type of sexuality? (Including polyamory) I am guilty of using this same argument in discussions centering around violence. "We are fully capable of rational thought!" is my counter to the pessimists who claim that, "The world is going to toilet!" because we do exhibit some of the negative characteristics of the animal kingdom, such as fratricide, matricide, patricide, hate crimes, murder for money or even the simple random murder of another human being.

For the record, I think that we are, too (animals). There is a distinction between insects and animals, no? So why is it often a convenient response to certain social engineering questions that include, "just look at the rationale that can be backed up by insects...which can support a a socio-dynamic theory...e.g. ants", yet fail to include the often noted "raison'd etre"? I question the interdependence of animal communities and the insect communities. I think that the two are very different.

Inspired by this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/33922-homosexuality-in-the-animal-kingdom/ I wonder how many posters in this forum consider themselves animals or even part of the animal kingdom? How much of what is interpreted through our research and studies in biology, ecology, zoology, etc. are we anthropomorphizing? Any thoughts?

While I am disappointed that Elaine Marshall did not win, I will not throw myself over a cliff because of it. Richard Burr is a moderate Republican who really does try to do the best he can with what he has. My only beef with him is that he hopped on the bandwagon, "I am going to help create jobs in N.C.!", yet voted against a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create American jobs and to prevent the offshoring of such jobs overseas. (Okay, that is not my only beef with him.) That just makes me go . But he has been consistent with his statements such as this: "I don't think that any American should be critical of an individual that's president...They need to be critical of the policies but not of the individual." I think Obama will just have to find some way to compromise with the Republicans. I think that the best way to do this will be to take a step back from the green energy regulation agenda and focus more on how to keep corporatism in check. And he should start by looking in his own backyard...as in personal investments as they relate to the policies that he is trying to put forth. *whistles*

No need to get snarky! :D I am well aware of the reputation points and how they are awarded, both positively and negatively. I was rather making a philosophical musing, that maybe a point system is not always the best way to gauge one's "reputation" on a website (it was intended for those who are unhappy with their reputation points). Perhaps instead, I should have resurrected and added this to one of the whinging, "Why am I getting negative reputation points?" that litter the lounge and the suggestions forum or even have started my own thread on it. However, since this is a pinned thread about reputation and the point system, I thought that this was the most appropriate place. Did I err in my judgement?

How do you delete your account on here?

I think the only way to gauge one's reputation is to see whether other's engage you in dialogue.

I think that you ought to clarify the terms that are used to determine the poll results, in order for anyone to make an informed choice when they participate in the poll.

I think before any further discussion on TPM ensues, I would just like to put out there a little bit more information. The Tea Party has received a huge chunk of their funding from the Koch brothers. Maybe there is so much misinformation about the Tea Party because there is some obfuscation where they receive their funding: But wait! Someone who draws a salary says something else: So where are these so called grassroots organizations getting their funding from again? So who are representing the Tea Party Movement again?: People like this: Keith Olbermann reveals. Oh, stop trying to invalidate poster's position through asking for anecdotal evidence. The evidence of the popular political positions of TPM is there, just read their own websites and their representative's quotes. My opinion is that there is no Tea Party. Only a way to dress up a Republican agenda of corporatism. By the way...since taxes seem to be the rallying cry of the TPM, did you know that 47% of Americans did not have to pay income tax in 2009? Do you think members of the TPM are aware of this? I think not. /rant off. Back to the OP: At least this didn't happen to you: Oh, and here's the head-stomper (Local Campaign Coordinator, Tim Profitt) with Tea Party candidate Rand Paul (taken after the head stomping):

This is one of the responses to your "sourced" article... Uhm...okay...you might want to double check the article to be sure it comes from a credible source, rather than spew the remnants of hyperbolic diarrhea that centers around an already confirmed opinion. Sorry, but I dislike the spreading of misinformation. This one was interesting though... Trip to India and the politics behind it... VVVVVVVV Thank you Mr. Skeptic! That is weird...why did it come up that way?/divagreen

What about magnesium?

Ymfsp dtz!

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/06/libertarian_tea_parties_not_so.php

Bmfy nx ymj xnlsknhfshj tk ymj szrgjw xnc? Uqjfxj wjuqd ns htij. Edit for correction...the above should read, "Bmfy nx ymj xnlsnknhfshj tk ymj szrgjw xnc? Uqjfxj wjuqd ns htij." /divagreen

CHICAGO (AP) - "An Illinois gubernatorial candidate's name was mistakenly listed as 'Rich Whitey' instead of Rich Whitney on thousands of Chicago electronic-voting machines and will be corrected, elections officials said Thursday." link And he is not even Republican...

A tautology is the most beneficial when applied in a heuristic fashion. Because the best way to measure things is sometimes using something the same and not different.

Probably a lot of posters have seen this, but I think that it is worth it with respect to the OP and in response to Marat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXclg6ZIVYc I would just like to say that Palin endorsed her... Did somebody mention the Koch brothers?

I would like to point out that not all religions require the belief in a supernatural moral agent as a foundation for ritualistic practices. I think that the OP is making a good point as to why the non-Abrahamic religions might be the most enduring because of precisely this belief (or lack thereof), since it edits out the most prevalent question that the Abrahamic religions in the face of rational scrutiny must ask themselves, "Does God (as perceived as a supernatural moral agent) exist?". I think that Buddhism or some form of Taoism will be the last religion standing. Sikhism gave a good shot at it though.

:lol: Godwin's Law FAQ

8) Duct tape, for sure. Or maybe I am just dated.

Uhm..with such a tight little knott, that strawman will never lose it's red bandanna. I guess by stating someone is making an appeal to emotion, without ever actually citing proof, constitutes as a legitimate argument which must surely be true. Considering, "Oh, she's too stupid to know what would happen after those two guys killed them"<---- I never said this. I think that her IQ was an issue in the crime that she was charged with, masterminding; and the admission by one of the killers that they manipulated her into going along with it.

I am okay with you thinking that if someone wants someone to be murdered and they had knowledge of such ahead of time, they should warrant the death penalty. I am simply grateful that you are the minority. But if you are going to make a case that I am "appealing to emotion" rather than reason, I think that it is only fair that you back it up. I am addressing the fact that a person with a low IQ has limited capability for abstract consequences and has been pre-conditioned to follow those who are of a higher intelligence.

Thank you for everyone's input, as the way that the topic was closed in the other thread left things a bit confusing. I believe in dual accountability on forum sites; from the users who cyber "sign" the terms of agreement as well as the posters who are in a position of power as administrators and moderators. One of the things that I like about this site is the way that the rules are enforced, the accountability that the moderators have demonstrated (in most cases), and the adherence to the process itself rather than the catering of egos. It is pretty stellar moderating IMO. As a user of this site, it is important for me to know who are the people in positions of power are, so that I know who to go to if I have a problem or a question. I believe in transparent processing when comes it to facilitating any type of group activity, forums being a form of "group activity". ***warning! tongue in cheek levity moment here!*** I also would like to know who else I can contact other than Swansont to correct my dreadful grammatical errors, as I have a terrible fear that I am going to call Swansont, "Swansnot", due to my mild dyslexia, and that he won't be very helpful at all. Is it posted somewhere who the moderators are in the chatroom? Because I had no clue. I think that I have only been a nuisance once or twice when I was abysmally bored and no one responded to "Hi!". I think that I argued with myself a bit...I know that chatrooms have logs and I was sincerely hoping that I entertained someone other than myself. Speaking of the chatroom...I notice that people can log in under different names? I would think that would be a deterrent to new users, as you have no idea whom you are really talking to and knowing whom you are talking to through their posts gives at least a frame of reference in order to find some type of conversation material.