Ringer

Even with the Constitution in mind, personal ownership is not protected. It could be argued that only militia members, and their ownership is to be regulated. There is no argument based on the constitution that could hold water against gun regulation, since well regulated is strictly in the Constitution.

AS to why they're different, it's believed that mitochondria were a distinct organism at one time and we co-evolved with them as endosymbiots. If I have time today, I'll look through my textbooks to see if there is a reference to differing genetic codes for mitochondria and eukaryotes, but I don't think they differ. If they do, differing genetic codes have various reasons for occurring such as mutation in tRNA where the AA binds or mutation in tRNA in the anti-codon region.

Also, pilots and astronauts are fairly regularly prescribed to amphetamines: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1552-4604.1993.tb01946.x/abstract http://library.thinkquest.org/C005038/amp.htm

So you're saying one of the founders of quantum electrodynamics doesn't understand electromagnetism? And that doesn't seem a stretch to you. Also, he had an entire aside about how asking why tends to be basically useless. So like attracts like, despite evidence to the contrary? That's not really asking why, that's just making things up.

I know some Japanese and learning more. I'm actually attempting to get into a Japanese graduate program after next year.

And that always leads to great scientific breakthroughs. . .

Here's a great example of why that isn't necessarily true Are you saying Richard Feynman didn't understand magnets because he couldn't explain it to this person?

Because many areas of the brain can be used for more than one purpose. For example, my mother had a stroke about 6 months ago that left her entire left side paralyzed. Since the neurons that connect from her arm to her spine to her brain were not severely damaged they could still send and receive signals, even though the areas of her brain that usually control those functions were effectively dead. By continuously attempting to move that arm, and moving it with her other arm, while concentrating still sends signals, axonal and dendritic extensions then migrate to the areas the signals are originating from. This creates new connections that are functionally identical to the connections that are no longer there. It's part of the nervous system's redundancy that allows for the recovery, not anything mystical or mysterious. Not to say it's not amazing, but it's not magic.

I could tell you how to rewire your brain for free. Here it is: do stuff. Your brain automatically creates and destroys connects as they are used, there's no secret method to it.

Pauli was a physicist, so not a psychological authority. That aside, iNow's point was that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, and not a valid argument. It doesn't matter what someone has said, without evidence or even a well thought out argument, anything an authority figure says holds no more weight than what a 4 year old says. It may be a relevant topic, so please do tell what that topic may be. Because people are asking what you want to discuss?

Wait, are you trying to say that having PhD at the end of your name doesn't mean you are qualified in every area? Blasphemy I say! [edit] I should probably mention that even if the Earth was only 5,000 years old that wouldn't be enough to show evolution is false. If that were true the best explanation for the evidence seen is that evolution happened extremely rapidly for most of history and the rate has declined rapidly. This is because regardless of geology, evolution has an ungodly amount of supporting evidence [/edit]

Yes, but any justification of any law can be reduced to an extremely specific scenario where it doesn't apply. And I answered you that the general distinction is still important, but no one has said that in every situation any one who asks should be given that information. Also, if you look at the history of bombing attacks, many don't have a criminal history so your specific example doesn't matter. And, again, I answered your question. It's a straw man because my position is that information on bomb making should not be made illegal. You made my position I should actively give information on how to make a bomb to someone who, I assume you meant, plans to do harm to others with that information. How is that not a straw-man. One is the existence of information, the other is active teaching. See the difference? As to me pointing out the exception, you want me to write the legislation? Again, would you give all the exceptions in the murder scenario?

Considering a criminal can mean someone who just jay walked, yes I think it is a critical distinction. I assume you mean giving the information knowing that the information is going to someone who is planning to commit a crime by using that information. That is a straw-man, and again is an extremely specific scenario when we are talking in generalities. It would be like you saying murder should be illegal then me countering with, "so you don't think you should be able to defend yourself when someone tries to murder/rape you?" It's a loaded question as well as a straw-man. There are always exceptions in any law, one of those would be giving the information to someone you know is actively planning on using that information to do harm. But the general distinction is still valid. Legislation is not all or nothing, nor is it black and white. Not purposefully, but I do feel the arguments you are making are being brought forth seem to be disingenuous and used solely to be contrary. [edit] I can't spell [/edit]

The distinction is critical because one can actively kill and the other does can actively do nothing. I would agree that this answer is pretty weak. I doubt one would say there is a safe magazine size, but there are safe uses for the information that can also be used for bomb making. Also, comparing a very specific example of, probably, the most arbitrary version of gun laws to an extremely broad area of information seem disingenuous

If you want to show him people imagining things that aren't there here's something to start with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_limb

I don't know how you didn't. When you say bomb information control should be treated the same as gun ownership control what else would you be doing? So then why would information on bomb making be illegal when making bombs is already illegal? Then I may be misunderstanding your entire stance on this.

How are you trying to act like owning something = knowing about something. It makes no sense, I know how to make heroin, meth, crack, etc. should those who gave me that information be in trouble even if I never make them? Since making or possessing those things is already illegal, what necessitates the information being illegal as well. A false equivalence and slippery slope don't really make good arguing points. Not to mention it is already illegal to share bomb making information to help commit a federal crime, which include making or possessing a destructive device. Which include: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5861 Bottom line is information is not put into a strict category of 'bomb making' and 'not bomb making'. The same information that is used to make bombs is used in any information rockets, combustion engines, firearms, etc., etc. Hell, warning signs such as 'objects explode under pressure' is information on bomb making.

To the brain dead being revived, brain death is defined as being irreversible. He may be equivocating brain death with persistent vegetative state. To the near death experience, using that as proof is absolutely absurd. That's no more proof than having a dream is.

They don't see colors differently, they just distinguish them differently. Say if they put yellow and purple in the same group you could ask them if they were the same thing they would tell you they weren't the exact same. Just like even if you don't know every type of blue's names you can tell the difference between two different kinds of blues, but you still think of them both as blue.

The trouble with probabilities such as the 1 in 2,000,000,000 is that the 2*10^9 only appears to be a large number without a reference to compare it to. Say I have a 2*10^9 sided die and I try to roll a specific number I won't get that number very often, if at all. But these things are singularly isolated events. To model the probability to reflect reality I have to say how many die are actually being rolled. If I'm rolling 2*10^18 die the probability I will get the number is pretty good.

That's a different line of reasoning. You are making a risk/reward judgment for yourself, not someone else. To make them similar you would have to change it to taking someone's money to buy them a new Harley so they can enjoy it now, then listen to complaints. It doesn't sound quite as reasonable. Then again, I'm not that big on philosophy of ethics so if we go any further I'll probably just be lost.

Not really, because you seem to enjoy missing the point of every quote you reply to. The rest you just seem to ignore without even trying. Not to mention I still don't know that that is really you. You just said you looked up people that have been beat up, the picture looks like a guy that got beat up. The main point, though, is that I don't care what you look like or what you're name is. Neither of those has indicated anything to me, the only thing that I have even paid attention to is your posts. Whether you give me all your information, health records, transcripts, etc. it would not make your posts any better. A rose by any other name is still a rose, and crap posts under any name are still crap posts.

So then why are you using an old picture? Are you hiding behind the old you? How do we even know that is really you? You will show me this by replying nonsensically and creating a false equivalence. I have been showed. . . I find the funniest thing is that he said the pictures don't matter, if only real names were used. Apparently he doesn't realize how easily he could find Swansont's name. His entire argument against Swansont is baseless on the outset. [edit] Also, should this discussion maybe be moved to a new thread on anonymity? The current discussion has virtually nothing to do with the OP [/edit]

That's not really an argument, at least I can't tell the point you're trying to make. http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences//retrieve/pii/S1364661313000661?_returnURL=http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1364661313000661?showall=true I'll just leave this here.

I honestly have no idea. I have just read about those types of things happening.