mooeypoo

You know, I think there's a tendency in this thread to forget one very important issue here: These couples - infertile or not, accepted or not, whatever else - will be together, are together as well as WERE together - regardless of any form of law on the matter. It's not a subject of choice, here. We are not discussion couples that want to buy houses as opposed to apartments, and whether or not the government should encourage the purchase of either one of those as some economic benefit or some other social (or anything else) benefit to the society. We're talking about people who are the way they are whether you like it or not, whether the government likes it or not, whether society likes it or not. Now the only question is will they be given equal rights or not. Fertile or infertile have absolutely nothing to do with anything. It's not like if you oppose gay marriage these couples will give up and marry heterosexuals and bear children. And it's not like if you accept gay marriage suddenly heterosexuals will get so excited they marry gay and turn to be "infertile" couples. They will not. They do not. They have not. This is a matter of equality by the law. Since "marriage" is the term used to define the various benefits that accompany it (including federal benefits that individual states cannot give), marriage is the term that should be used in this case as well. Unless, of course, you oppose equality. It's really that simple. Saying that gay marriage should be called something else is like saying biracial marriage should be called something else. You guys (america) had this fight in terms of African Americans less than 100 years ago. Now you're going through the same things with the LGBT community. The claims about infertility, social acceptance and all taht are very similar to the claims made in relevance to biracial marriages not too long ago. It all comes down to equal rights. I don't see how fertility or our ability to recognize it has anything to do with it other than being a red herring to the topic at hand. ~moo

I think what we meant here when we asked for reference was a peer reviewed reference. You know.. the type that is actually scientific, rather than science fiction'y.

Ahem, citations for your images? Other than avoiding Plagiarism, citing your images could help us see what their context is.

I totally agree with that. I just believe that the tendency to read between the line or misinterpret people's requests for more information, etc, stems from the attitude. If we can try and change the way we get INTO these debates, those may be easier to avoid. ~moo

Agreeing or disagreeing with you aside, the attitude of this post is unacceptable, Moontanman. As someone who happens to find quite a lot of merit in the CORE of what you're trying to say, I think your ideas would have been delivered (and probably accepted) much better if you would have avoided the instinctive shoot-from-the-hip response and criticized the points that were made instead of the person making them. This is a touchy subject to many of us in many aspects (me included). I recommend we all take a few deep breaths before we post replies so we can continue this discussion in a civil manner. ~moo

engr tayyab, please avoid posting your email in public. This is a debate forum, which means the replies go in the threads for all to learn from and not directly to your email.

I removed 2 email addresses from various posts in this thread. This is a debate forum which means the debates happen HERE, not in email. Please don't post email addresses in public. If you insist on talking to a single person in email, send them a Private Message. Also, posting your email address in a public forum is a recipe for spam. To all those who got their emails removed: You're welcome. ~moo

Right, my point was less about specific examples and more about attitude. For that matter, I completely agree with swansont's point that there *ARE* objective facts in politics, they should not be ignored, and those who make false fact (or a claim that should be evidenced and isn't) should be called out for it. My point was about the attitude of doing that. Calling someone out for making a claim without evidence (when evidence is due) is good. Calling someone an idiot because he believes something without evidence is bad. Even more so when it's subversive or indirect. I must say, I don't know enough in economics to make a judgment call here. Most of the above are claims that REQUIRE evidence but might in reality result in conflicting conclusions. Whichever it is, evidence SHOULD be supplied. The quesiton is not so much about whether or not it's an opinion, but more as to the attitude of the debate; political issues usually involve emotions and personal experience and when we debate these issues we should remember that. Let's say we put up evidence we both agree on but I use them to say #1 is therefore false, you can argue that, in fact, looking at other countries, #1 is right. I can then state that it's a social matter and therefore other countries are less relevant, in which case the debate goes on. BTW, I have no idea about those subjects, so the paragraph is completely out of my rear orifice; don't take it as a literal attempt to argue here.. I'm just using this as an example. My point is that if we conduct the argument civilly, we *BOTH* might actually learn something here. I might learn about the "other side's" motives, what drives you to your conclusion. I might chance my mind, I might not, but at least I know MORE about the subject I'm arguing for or against. If I go into the debate with this attitude, the debate will remain civil and will be constructive. Troubles arise when people get emotional and personal and attack one another. It's the attitude I'm contesting against, not the argument of using facts.

Totally agree .. I even opened up my geeky "Engineer's Guide to USS Enterprise" book I have here....

Yeah, absolutely, the entire theory has a lot of problems and it is NOT practical at the moment. Also, I want to separate my 2 points - the point about emphasizing that no *MASS* can go on the speed of light (that much is true, information CAN go at teh speed of light, though not surpass it) and the point about entanglement. My only point about entanglement was that *if* we can practically use entanglement, I don't see why we can't use it for communication. My whole point here is that if we want to make an imaginative guess/prediction, then slipstream is much less probable than something like entanglement. At least entanglement is a supported phenomena. ~moo

if something moves, something can represent information. "Beep" / "no beep" / "beep" is the basis for binary information. I am not 100% familiar with entanglement, and - GRANTED - it's a VERY very complicated subject that still has a lot of its aspects checked, but I do see (and am not the only one, according to several of my professors, at least) how it can help us transmit data. Is it viable now? No. Is it plausible? Probably a bit more than "slip stream", yes.

I totally agree, Jill, but just to be pedantic, as we currently understand the cosmos, no mass can travel faster (or at) the speed of light. Entanglement might mean information can, and, as bascule once said in anothre thread (I think.. sorry if I am misattributing), if you manage to translate mass to information and have something translate it backwards to mass at the end-point, you MIGHT be able to send stuff faster than light. That, though, is HIGHLY speculative. It would also require us to figure out if, at all, we can translate ourselves (which is a bit more complicated than just "mass") into information and "rebuild" ourselves back. Like a transporter. Only more realistic.

You're missing the point. My point was about the attitude, not about the assertions, opinions or factoids given. If you need clarification about evidence, or if you require more evidence for a certain claim, that is not only your right to point it out, it's also demanded by plain logic that you do that. The question of how you do that is what gets discussion to go to hell. And the 'how you do that' stems from the initial attitude people come to the discussion. If you treat people as if they're stupid, you won't get what you want, you will instead get defensive reactions - and unsurprisingly, and justly, and totally understandably. It's all about the attitude that you approach the argument. If your attitude is that you want to share your views and see why others have theirs, you will have a much more pleasant time debating than if you hold the position that whomever doesn't agree with you needs to have their balls crushed by the multitude of evidence against their position. It's the attitude. ~moo P.S: Just in case this wasn't clear, the reason I respond without "QUOTING" anyone and use "YOU" is because there are SEVERAL people in this thread (and other threads) that's been doing this, and I don't mean this personally against anyone specific, but rather towards everyone who are willing to listen. Please don't make this personal.

I think starting this up as a new debate is a great idea. That said, I'd like to clarify my position on it - I think that it lost a bit of the context I was refering to. I wrote this post as a reply to a specific argument, and the point I was trying to make is about the methodology of discussion. I am, by no means, saying that facts have no room in political debates - they sure as heck do. Obviously, the arguments are BASED upon factual data and often the facts need to be clarified. However, there's a big distinction between political debates and scientific debates in terms of methodology, and I feel like sometimes we forget that, specifically in this forum, most likely because we are a mixed forum dealing with both. In a scientific debate, strictly speaking, there's no room for opinion. We discuss empirical evidence and their logical course towards a conclusion. The conclusion / hypothesis / theory that results may be under scrutiny, but the methodology of debate in the scientific world is constructed upon the idea that reality is objective, not subjective, and that the universe acts a certain way, not randomly whatever we feel comfortable with. In politics, however, we have more freedom to analyze and interpret the facts according to our experience (which, in science, is less relevant, being anecdotal) our emotions and our biases. We can TRY and avoid these - that's the point of having civil debates about politics - but we should also understand that the methodology of political debates are not striving towards the same goal (of a "single" objective reality/truth). When we forget that there's a difference between these two methodologies, we tend to be obtuse, offensive and impatient, and the debates turn from civil exchange of opinions to an annoying fist fight match where, often, the participants end up comparing genitalia size rather than listening to one another's different interpretation of the facts. I'll give an example. I am a carnivore. I love meat, I am unlikely to give it up, I do not think there's anything unethical about consuming meat in general, and, to be quite honest, I never could understand the mentality of those who define themselves vegan. I disagree with it completely. When I debate this subject, I do not go into it thinking I must change vegans' minds about it. I am aware that this is a different perception, a different standard for morality that I don't share. The purpose for debating the subject - at least for me - is to learn more about the reasons why vegans do what they do. My methodology of debate, therefore, is not the same one I'd use to argue a flat-earther. I will not come to this debate thinking the people in front of me are ignoring all facts - I will let them lay out the facts and evidence and explain themselves. I will then, probably, counter those evidence and explain my own position. In my experience with this specific subject, both sides will end up agreeing on the facts but disagreeing on the conclusion. Unlike in science, that is perfectly fine. Of course, not all political debates are like that. Some are emotional, as they "hit a nerve" with people when the subjects are more personal. Those are hard to debate and hard to avoid getting personal in. My point, though, is that the attitude should be different than what we usually see: People who disagree with me politically are not necessarily idiots. They're not necessarily ignoring facts - they might be interpreting them differently. The debate will be much more civil if we all walk into it with THIS attitude in mind, rather than with an attitude in which anyone who disagrees with me must be ignoring all facts and being an idiot. We should all take into account that in these debates we are not the only passionate participant. The people arguing the opposite position are also passionate, and they're not stupid; if you disagree on facts, lay them out. Put forth evidence, argue the validity of those evidence and showcase your interpretation and logic that leads to your conclusion, but do not pretend to be the smartest of them all in a subject that is obviously often led by emotions and personal experience. My point is simple: Use the discussion to learn from one another rather than to attack each others' positions just for the sake of sticking to your own. ~moo

Politics is not science, it's obviously not empirical and has multiple possibilities for a conclusion. You can discuss factual data, but the conclusion that arises from that factual data is (unlike science!) subjective. Stop pretending this is supposed to be some empirical objective endeavor. Be civil, and stop expecting others to refrain from using logical fallacies when you use logical fallacies, or convince others that they should be open minded to your opinion when you're presenting yourselves to be absolutely positive that your own opinion is right. If you're not open minded, stay out of the thread; we're not arguing facts, we're arguing opinion, and in politics that's what counts. That goes to EVERYONE on this thread. If you just stop writing against each other and start listening and DISCUSSING with each other, the thread (and this forum, quite frankly) will be a much better place. You might actually learn from one another, even while you disagree. What a wonderful concept that will be, eh? ~moo

Okay, knock it off, all of you. Politics is not science, it's obviously not empirical and has multiple possibilities for a conclusion. You can discuss factual data, but the conclusion that arises from that factual data is (unlike science!) subjective. Stop pretending this is supposed to be some empirical objective endeavor. Be civil, and stop expecting others to refrain from using logical fallacies when you use logical fallacies, or convince others that they should be open minded to your opinion when you're presenting yourselves to be absolutely positive that your own opinion is right. If you're not open minded, stay out of the thread; we're not arguing facts, we're arguing opinion, and in politics that's what counts. That goes to EVERYONE on this thread. If you just stop writing against each other and start listening and DISCUSSING with each other, the thread (and this forum, quite frankly) will be a much better place. You might actually learn from one another, even while you disagree. What a wonderful concept that will be, eh? ~moo

Then there's no use to have any sort of debate, now, is there? Let me put it differently: If you're claiming that no matter what evidence you're shown - that is, no matter how compelling an evidence will be shown, you will stick to your ground, by your own admission - then you are, by your own admission, closed minded. I, for instance, am open to be convinced. I will require evidence, and probably quite compelling to convince me, but I *DO* keep myself open to the chance of being convinced. You are not. This is, therefore, not a basis for a debate. There's no point. Is there?

That's not the claim that "science" makes about life. No one suggests atoms themselves are alive. Animals, plant life and us humans are alive by our OWN definition, and we are a collection of billions of atoms and molecules. You're creating a strawman and you're basing the rest of your claims on that *flawed* representation of the claim so you can counter it. First off, you are basing this claim on a flawed representation of the counterclaim. That's a straw man. It's not science. Second, lack of evidence is not evidence by itself. You are making a claim here, and you need to provide evidence for that claim otherwise no one will accept it. No one has made the claim that atoms are life or that atoms are alive. YOU are making the claim that others make that claim. If you think you know what life is, or that life is more than the physical, then YOU are responsible to prove it. Bcause you're making the claim. Again, Eric, no one claims that. Read up. Lack of evidence is not evidence by itself. You need to supply evidence for your own hypothesis. That is not the claim. The claim might be that life is COMPRISED of atomic structure, but that is quite different than saying life "is" an atomic strucutre. That is not the claim. By far. No. You're making the claim here, and since lack of evidence is not evidence by itself, you are the one with the burden of proof. Good luck.

munion, D H is answering your question respectfully. There's no reason for you to take things personally and have the conversation turn to personal levels. This is a debate, not a fist fight. Please be respectful.

Indeed, which still wouldn't necessarily mean we will get noise from household appliances (the claim can be that we're using some different range of frequencies) *BUT* we will very likely get a lot of noise from a whole RANGE of other E&M radiation, from the Sun to satellite transmissions to the CMB. Again, though, to be fair, that's not what would discard the idea (you COULD claim that we already ARE recieving said noise but since it's constant, we don't notice it). That, actually, is a known phenomenon of our brains - if you get a non changing input for a while, you stop processing it, as your brain decides it's "noise". That's why I continued to say that the actual EVIDENCE for transmitting/reception from and to our brain is showing to be completely bollocks. It's nonexistent not necessarily because of whatever noise we'll be getting, but because it's just nonexistent. It's a subtle destinction, and yet one worth making. Experiments were done, experiments showed the NONEXISTENCE of this phenomenon.

To be fair, no. Not if our brains worked on a completely different medium than electromagnetic radiation, or, for that matter, in a completely different frequencies. However, to expand on your point, if our brains DID intercept any sort of natural medium, we should have received some sort of noise from SOMEWHERE. There is such a huge amount of natural "noise" in nature, that if we were functioning as antenae, we would've gotten it from somewhere. Constantly. Of course, to be fair again, the claim can be raised that we might actually BE intercepting it right now, but since it's constant, we don't notice it. That's a fair point, but one that needs some evidence. As it is, all evidence proposed were discounted and other evidence were shown to obliterate this idea completely. And yet another however, if we were to intercept (or transmit) any form of detectable wave on any frequency, the experiments that were performed would have picked it up. They did not. Even more than that, experiments that were done just to see if a person can intercept another through an opaque screen (for instance, an experiment was performed to see if a self-claimed "mind reader" / "energy intercepter" whatever they call themselves) can pinpoint the location of where a different person put their hand on an opaque THIN layer of screen. Those failed too. All evidence so far show, therefore, that our brain does not transmit any form of detectable, usable "brain power" thought telepathy of any kind that can be used for either telepathy or telekinesis or any other tele-something. ~moo

I recommend all members be civil to one another and go over our rules. Impolite behavior will not be tolerated. Also, if you don't have anything consructive to add to the debate, don't post at all. That goes to everyone.

The link is dead, dr.syntax, can you submit it again?

Anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence. You didn't supply any historical record from the academic institution ,though, you supplied anecdotal hearsay from someone who claims to know someone who perhaps knows someone who was there. That's not evidence. The *ENTIRE* forum is a science forum, dr.syntax, all posts must adhere to the rules and methodology of scientific method. Even more so when you're making a claim, which you are. You're not giving anything, not even historical evidence (those need to be corroborated too, you know). That link is absolutely pointless. First, it's anecdotal evidence, which is invalid. Second, we can't be sure it's even a RELIABLE anecdotal evidence (who the heck is this guy? are you sure he's who he says he is? was it corroborated? if he IS who he says he is, why is he writing in a site like tripod.com ?) In short, YOU are the one who dislikes the fact you have nothing on your favour and when you're called on it, you choose to play innocent and run. You can do that, of course, but that doesn't make your claim plausible, or even remotely scientific. ~moo

Thread moved to computer help.