ParanoiA

How can their writing skill be good if they're boring? Always been a pet peeve of mine. Anyone can color their language and write descriptively, or introduce some kind of style - but if it's boring and feels like punishment to read, then it's a crap style. I don't buy this idea that certain writers are worthy of praise when no one can read their books without yawning. That's crappy writing, not genius. And if it is genius, then maybe it's for geniuses to read, not me. Harry Potter books are good books. People love reading them, young and old. It's a long story, well thought out and executed. Introduces themes and dynamics that rival great storytelling. Thank god it wasn't written by some literary "genius", rather was spared the punishment of vain, diarrhetic drivel.

But they were watching children who were. That is offensive. Incidentally, those children are adults now. Can you imagine how that would feel to be abused as a child to that extreme, and then know your images and media are being used by a sesspool of pedophiles? This is wrong on so many levels... I appreciate the sexual orientation argument clinically, but that doesn't excuse any burden on society to denounce that orientation with prejudice. That's an out-group behavior we should keep. My concern is more with providing help for those who seek it before they commit a crime. I don't like the idea of society overcompensating by punishing people who come forward for help, and likewise I have no sympathy for those who don't seek it and rationalize the rape of a child. I would think anything that feeds an obsession, contributes to it's growth.

Interesting thread. I would not promote legalizing any kind of child porn no matter when it was made. Some of these children, probably most, are still alive today anyway and there is further harm to be done. 18 year olds and up dressing like a 12 year old or something, or digitally altering the pictures - I see no violation of anyone's rights. There is no issue. Even cartoons depicting child rape have not violated anyone's rights. The only violations of rights are those that want to impose restriction out of fear. Anyone caught with pictures of minors are innocent until proven guilty. So, in my opinion - and what should be the constitution's opinion - the subjects in the pictures have to be found, their age determined, so that guilt can be proven. This is not as daunting as it may sound. Consider the number of popular child porn images in circulation. You only need to prove it once - then the repeats of that picture are automatic. Also, shouldn't the source matter? If I download a picture of what is supposed to be an 18 year old girl, trying to look 14, and it's really a 14 year old girl, then why should I be punished for it? I have no reasonable way to verify age of people in pictures. Theoretically, this could happen when I buy a porn magazine at the store. All the people who bought the magazine should be arrested, as well as the magazine maker - to be consistent.

yeah, no kidding... I couldn't find the story on CNN, so you might be on to something

Sure. Just so long as your mistakes don't hurt me. I know that's not all you said, but I'm not asking you about that, I'm asking you why you don't believe you should be consistent with this notion. How is "specific action on the specific consequences" not just patching holes in bad logic? And is that tied in with your seeming compromise sought right out of the gate rather than respectable contest?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292065,00.html Ok, can someone explain to me how this is possible? I realize he's a self proclaimed pedophile, in the sense that he admits sexual attraction to prepubescent girls, but he hasn't actually committed a crime. This doesn't seem right to me...

You know, I don't get that. Nobody I talk to seems scared of anything, yet half of them love the idea of rolling tanks and killing people over there. I'm starting to seriously consider the psychology of "reality TV" and american boredom. It almost reminds me more of the "drama queens" we meet in our life. People that make a mountain out of a mole hill because they need that drama - they want for something to be "going down". Fear is involved, but I'm wondering if that's as overblown as the idea that the terrorists attack us because we're "free". I heard someone mention yesterday about the one serious problem about reality TV - shows like Cops. Something I had never really considered. It's dangerous to turn people's real lives into entertainment. We watch some idiot get arrested on Cops, for beating his wife or something, and we don't have any sympathy for the guy - then the camera sweeps the house and there's little kids wandering around. I mean...this is kinda sick. Anyway, I just can't help wondering now if many americans just wanted something to be "going down". Something important, serious - war. Terrorists gave us an excuse, and now we have War TV. People's real lives being our entertainment.

But the slippery slope is the logic you're using to justify your position. Your position seems to come from the idea that if what I do, economically, hurts you, then I shouldn't be able to do it. Now, I realize you didn't put forth that logic, that logic was inferred by your position. So, now I'm wondering if you're using any particular logic in your position, and if this logic extends beyond this position. If not, why not? I realize this wasn't directed at me, but isn't a valid point a subjective thing? Also, why is it so bad to argue with you about your views? Maybe you didn't want to do that, but you did post them...

That's like saying beer does not contain water. Of course it does. But it's beer now, not water. Just like it's liquid hydrocarbons - liquified because the water could not escape during the process. Oil and coal are both decayed organic matter in the absence of oxygen. Oil is different only in that it's primarily algal matter. Rush was not lying, he was pushing a point of view - a flawed point of view. Yes, that was stupid. Not a lie. He didn't "claim" it. Here's the transcript: He obviously didn't know it ran on coal and made a fool out of himself. "Lying" is your tactic to capitalize on someone's stupidity to discredit their motives. Despite what you may believe, everytime someone says something stupid, it's not a lie, Lucaspa...it's something stupid. Rush would also try to make it seem like someone was lying if he could. Now, by your logic, you lied: Rush implied no such thing according to that transcript. I'm sure you were just mistaken. But, by your standards, you lied, just like Rush. By my standards, Rush was stupid and you simply didn't recall a 4 year old event accurately. That's the difference between rhetoric fueled by hatred, and common sense fueled by reason. Don't have a transcript for that part of the program, but again, I doubt it. That would be a lie. There's no "essential equivalence" argument for that kind of comment. So, if he actually mentioned "interaction with water" then I agree, he lied. I don't think he did. Not because I think he's above it, but because he's as honest as a lawyer - I would imagine he would stop short of interaction with water. Yes, that's why I liked him. I like him now simply because of that emotional tie to my early interest in politics. No I didn't. That was my mistake. Here's what Rush said: He didn't say flourocarbons. So, again by your standards, you lied. And you lie, again. Maybe you should rethink your standards, and consider using reason and fair judgement to call someone a liar. It also helps if you drop your ideology and think critically, not emotionally. And you are being a great case study of how some scientists hold themselves above reproach, accusing responsible inquiry with "attacking science". Not attacks - good faith inquiry. Yet you fly off the handle and claim you're being "attacked". This is what Rush does. Anyone who even questions what he believes, is a "liberal kook" that is "attacking the values of america". This is what you have done. Now, what is "data"? Where I come from, "data" is the raw numbers, measurements and etc. It's the graph that compares annual temparatures to a certain period of time. It's the CO2 measurements taken periodically and recorded. If I have that wrong, please correct me, because that's how I'm using the term. Here's what you're doing....by saying: You then remove the interpreter from the statement, as if the ONLY way it could interpreted is the way in which you have presented it. I didn't refute your statement about the climate changing and humans being involved - I agree with that. I just took issue with removing "scientists" from their data. Someone has to look at the numbers and logically reason "x". It's quite basic and fundamental. The reason why I'm doing that is because the data has NEVER been in question, that I know of anyway. Global warming skepticism has ALWAYS been about interpreting that data. A true critical thinker, and seeker of truth would not attempt to use rhetoric like "attacking science" when attempting to analyze a problem at its source. It would make no sense to argue about any other aspect of GW other than interpretation. The data seems sound and I've never heard anyone refute it. And since things don't interpret themselves, people have to do it. Scientists are people and I depend on them to interpret it. Most of them have interpreted it, further, to mean we're causing GW. So I'm on board. I'm also watching the skeptics since the consensus isn't impressive enough to dismiss them, although it's certainly close. The more resistance I get about it, the more inclined I am to keep looking. Again, not from Limbaugh... http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp This is more about media than science. And it's not "attacking science" either. It's talking about the same phenomenon we see today. Although, I think we have way more scientific consensus now than ever before. Here you think you are competent. So where did you lose that competence? I think I'm competent enough to "wonder" about stuff - golly' date=' gee whiz kinda thing. I don't think I really should have to say that's quite a bit different than full blown "analysis". I won't do the ridiculous and waste my life pouring over documents and learn the trade in order to understand them - all just to do my own verification on ONE issue facing the world today. I won't. I will, just like you and the rest of the world, depend on experts in a given field to do the interpreting and let me know the results. It's called dividing the workload. It's central to late human success. Some would say the division of work is a major key to our exponential rate of advancement. That article is not "data". It's some human's interpretation of historical events. I haven't provided any data. I'm talking about pie charts and graphs and articles that actually talk about the science. I don't reject any of it. I told you before, I don't know how to discern bad data from good - I'm depending on you guys for that. You're doing fine, what's the problem? Actually I was just trying to use colorful language to express how much I really don't care either way. I'm not really sure what got you thinking I'm a "denier" or whatever in the first place. I'm far more predisposed to believe IN global warming. I've already accepted it. I'm just not 100% convinced. And this is where you prove to be just like Rush. Anyone who doesn't agree 100%, is attacking you, or your trade, making it personal...etc You are proving my suspicion: You hate Rush because you're similar to him. Most people hate most in others what they see in themselves. I have provided data, in 3 posts now, that includes repeated lack of parity with Rush's views. I have stated, repeatedly, that I only agree with a handful of his views anymore. Yet, you have ignored this data and characterized me as "his padawan apprentice". You also ignored the data on my lack of faith or trust in Rush's facts, yet you also characterize my information as coming from his facts - when NONE of it did. You ignore the data you don't like to make the conclusions you want. This is what Rush does. You repeatedly accuse me of attacking science or scientists, when merely questioning science or scientists - another Rush Limbaugh trait. You infer a psychological stick in that last quote, using the fact that no one is saying "we'll ignite in a ball of fire in 10 years" without noticing the fact that no one is saying "the world will have an oil fire party" either - both are consequences. The conditions were "We are solely to blame" and "It's all BS". Yet you disingenuously presented that your own way - the Rush Limbaugh way.

But if you're looking for indirect harm, it's a never ending chain reaction that will reach back through time as well as implicating everyone in the present. Indirect harm, is a slippery slope. Some would argue we're slipping down the slop right now. The home owners in my neighborhood are beginning to move out and rent out their properties. This is driving the market price down in my neighborhood. Is that a valid reason to deny owners the right to lease out their property? That's why indirect harm is a weird and quite subjective concept from which to make laws and so forth. Freedom, here in America anyway, was defined by direct harm being the threshold of your liberty. You understand by living here, and anywhere for that matter, that what other humans do will indirectly effect you - there's no avoiding it - every single action has an infinite chain reaction of consequences. Only direct harm can be managed and dealt with objectively. Because compromise isn't necessarily a mixture of "correct" and "incorrect", but moreso a mixture of your idea and my idea - which may help us get by, but neither of our ideas are having a chance to work to their full potential. Many ideas depend upon their dynamics in order to work well, dyanamics that are being sacrificed in the "compromise". That's why I've always thought that perhaps none of us have any idea whether, for instance, conservatism or liberalism work well. We've never implemented either idea fully. How can liberalism work if there are no entitlement programs? How can conservatism work when there are entitlement programs? (In reality, I don't think any one works better than the other, rather just a personal preference of pros and cons...) Just a thought, but sometimes I wonder if compromise isn't the cause of not solving any of our problems.

Also hating those who hate. I always laugh when I hear someone overcompensate their supposed lack of prejudice by hating the KKK, or homophobes and etc...

I apologize, you're right, I totally missed it. And I agree too, that you're not born homophobic.

Oh, so how did you get taught to like the opposite sex? Personally, I don't remember anyone teaching me to like girls...I just did...like I was born that way. Well not racism, for obvious reasons, but wussism yeah. Homophobia would be an irrational, unreasonable fear or contempt for gay people. Don't know why anyone should fear them, but...

It has not proved to be the case. Not when you consider the psychology of the public inherent in a constant regulation environment. Maybe from a pragmatic standpoint, the quickest "fix" is to plug the regulation hole, but the larger problem is too much regulation - contributing to the psychology of entitlement and over protection. Man I about fell out of my seat...I'm envisioning south park, stan's uncle - the hunting guy - on a bull horn... Thing is, vermin and disease would qualify as harm to others. Not to mention, that behavior laws applied locally are usually the goal of the libertarian ideology, even some nuisance laws. But I think you're really missing it here. I think you overestimate the significance of these laws. It's not harassment laws that keep me from driving my truck naked and cussing out little kids at bus stops. It's not nuisance laws that keep me from painting a giant breast on the side of my house. The country isn't going to go into chaos without these laws. And what about neighborhood covenants and associations - contracts? Nobody wants crappy neighbors and that can be solved without making laws. Most people deserve the benefit of the doubt since most people aren't a nuisance like you outline above. That's a disturbing deviation from our founders that we've introduced, we impact the majority to stop a minority. I think most are a bit conditioned to the legislative method of behavior modification.

I think Hammer has lived up to his name already... I hope you're a "he" anyway...I guessed pangloss a "she" when I first came here, but he took it well.

That's still an emotional appeal. What does that actually DO? Whether he violated the law or not (on his personal time), he still fulfilled his job capacity and passed the laws his constituency expected him to. So what does hypocrisy in that case actually DO? The answer is nothing. He would have passed that law even if he wasn't a hypocrite. And he would have violated that law even if he wasn't a legislator. It just makes us mad that he says one thing and does another. An emotional appeal. Why would I hide it and try not to get caught if I didn't think I was bound by the laws I pass? Think about it Lucaspa. If I really didn't think the law applied to me, I would smoke marijuana on the house floor and anywhere else I want. THAT would be consistent with your logic. But I hide it and try not to get caught because I do think I'm bound by the laws I pass and will get punished for it. However, lack of respect, is certainly the key here. You seem to be hinging this on "restricting freedom". If he uses the state to restrict freedoms he secretly enjoys privately, then he's using the power of the state. But why is "restricting freedom" your boundary? Why is it fundamentally different than using the state for "liberating freedom" while he secretly restricts these freedoms privately? He's still saying one thing and doing another. You just prefer not being restricted. Some people prefer restriction on human behavior, and so to them would be equally atrocious behavior. In both examples though, nothing changes legislatively by his personal behavior. And nothing changes personally by legislative behavior. That's perfect separation of personal life and professional duty. The only thing that makes it "matter" is that it's the same person. Functionally, they might as well be two different people. That's why I say it's an emotional issue, not a functional one. You are right. My criteria is limited to his professional job capacity only. The same criteria I'm judged by for my job. His personal life means nothing and is irrelevant. I use Cox cable, yet I work for AT&T. Am I a hypocrite? It only matters that I perform my duties as AT&T has defined them. Even though, deep down, I'd prefer Cox cable to perform better than AT&T. No one gets to use that against me. I don't see why it should be any different for legislators. It should only matter that they perform their duties as we, the people, define them. And I don't believe their private life has any place in that definition, just like with my job. Also, consider how hypocritical all of us are anyway. You don't float stop signs? Never get a bit of lead foot while in a hurry? Never fail to use your turn signal? These are traffic laws that most of us agree with, yet most of us have violated at one point or another. Did we think the law didn't apply to us? Are we all hypocrites now? You can float stop signs ever now and then and still support legislation to raise the fines. It makes you a good legislator, because you separate your personal life from your professional one. No, no. Think about this first. I'm saying the driver, the momentum, the motivation for such a law is not part of the law. It's because people think someone "deserves" punishment that they are motivated to pass laws. But the concept of "deserves" is not present IN the law. Therefore, the law is not a value judgement, it's a violation judgement. I can pass laws to create or promote a desired outcome - nothing to do with any value judgement. If I want to see more red cars on the road, I could pass laws to restrict the use of other colors, while I personally own a black car. That's using law to create a desired outcome, not pass a value judgement. (Specifically, that example is an abuse of power and the majority rule, but I think you get my point...) Certainly you can. He could have low regard for himself, while having the utmost respect for the rest of the public. Maybe he lost his wife and now he doesn't care about himself and wants to die. So, he passes laws to keep drugs illegal, while he doses himself nightly, slowly killing himself. He's still performing his job duties, separate from his personal life. Well, I'm a little conflicted, honestly. On the one hand, I don't like morality being a function in government. It's not up to the government to decide what is moral, what is not, and we should not be electing people who want to do so. No one should be looking to the government to figure out what's ethical, legitimate behavior - nothing. On the other hand, laws are derived, ultimately, from some kind of moral code. And I don't think there's any way out of that. For example, I believe in the basic concept of freedom to do anything you want as long as you don't directly harm the person or property of another. But even that is a moral code. And when you start defining what is "harm" and what is property, person and all that - you end up with a moral structure of some kind. So, all that to say, I don't know....

And don't let my post mislead, I do believe we are obligated to fix our mess. I'm operating under the assumption that our leaving will relax the insurgency. I know, I know, there's also the threat of civil war. So whatever we do here, in my opinion anyway, should be out of obligation to right our wrong, however possible that may be. If that means leaving troops for several more years, so be it. I just don't want americans getting excited about winning to the extent we're back to kicking ass without ethical reverance.

Right on. No. It's the most clearest case of economic catastrophe spurned by irresponsible people that are used to being protected by regulations rather than thinking for themselves and being responsible for their own actions. Everyone is this process has guilt to share. When you make the government your legitimator, your protector - roles it should never have - then you get people who adapt to being protected and look to the government to distinguish what is legitimate and what is not. Most humans only do as much as they have to. If they don't need to learn about mortgages, interest rates, equity and etc, then they won't, most of the time. The market will work when the people are more responsible. That won't happen until you make them be responsible for themselves, rather than inventing government bureaucracies to do it for them, with bottomless pits of money vacuums to feed them.

So you wouldn't have any issues if Iran did this to us right? I guess I'm not understanding what ethic allows you to believe bombing another country that has not attacked us...yet again...is ok. Or are we abandoning principle under the guise of "national security" again? Why should it be any of our business? If we concentrated on defense here at home and quit spreading "freedom and democracy" with guns and bombs then why would anyone attack us? The nuclear black market is for us to deal with when it takes place on our soil, otherwise you're violationg another country's sovereignty because of your fear, or mistaken pragmatism - neither of which shares the severity of retaliation for an attack, which is supposed to be the reason why we support military action. Preemption is Bush's shameful policy, why should we perpetuate it? I could see working with other countries in the same capacity as we do for hunting down criminals and so forth, but if they don't cooperate I don't see how we ethically have a right to use force. Particularly when you consider allies without ties to terror are hard to come by at all in that region. I wouldn't be looking for allies, I'd be looking to leave altogether and let them kill each other or grow up. We can deal with them when they share rationality with us. I wish I could say the same. But honestly, I sat on the fence for years. I could go either way on any given day. Only now, do I feel like I have a position I feel confident about. Based on philosphy, ethics, ideology - not on success or failure. This is also why I'm a little concerned about the recent "success" of the surge. I'm afraid that if we're winning this war, americans will change their minds about withdrawing. Like winning suddenly justifies the occupation...

Ah, so you agree that I, the one declaring you insane, would "have to have a basis" for calling you insane? "Having a basis" is as simple as pointing out your odd joke. To make a respectable case, is going to require evidence. If you are going to make a case that someone is mentally ill, then you need evidence. You don't have evidence that creationism is false. You don't have a case.

If it requires a third person, then isn't their offspring's genetics not the product of just the two of them in the relationship? Is this the condition you're talking about being artificially applied?

True. But in today's political climate, thinking long and hard isn't seen by the american people. So it becomes political suicide. They just assume "Get them terrists!" is the result of shooting from the hip...

Ah, the wonderful hypocrisy in american politics. This is how partisans get caught - sharing how they really feel. Obama is right, of course. At least, in the context of hunting down Osama and 9/11 consiprators. I can't agree with violating a country's sovereignty for terrorists that are "high value" though. It has to be someone directly involved with an attack, in my opinion.

Me neither. You have provided ZERO proof that you're sane. Try again. This reply makes zero sense. Did you even read what you're replying to? Agreed. And I didn't imply that anyone in this thread, other than agentchange, answered any different than 'no'. I just brought up the phrasing of the question in an off hand remark, because I too, have noticed this technique used in polls. And I've never cared for it. I think Glider misunderstood me to mean that no matter what answer is given, the conclusion is "creationism = mental disorder", and that's not what I meant. Rather, the phrasing of the question assumes "creationism = false or bad". That could very well be my fault too.