ParanoiA

Well, the ole lightbulb just isn't coming on. I understand the angles of the bricks making them appear shorter to each observer, and I'm following the steps as they seem pretty easy. The final explanation though just isn't there. It shows a triangle made from the red brick wall and the two blue brick walls. Then two more thinner blue lines outside of those. I don't understand what those are. I'm pretty sure that's key to understanding the point of the example. So far, they seem to be arbitrary lines that just popped up out of nowhere. So, the reason discussed afterwards still doesn't help me since I don't know where these thin blue lines came from. I'm going to see if there are any other examples on the net. I feel like I'm getting close...

I wonder if this is in reference to the sick romantic way republicans sell this war. All of this gung ho patriotism that reeks of propaganda and selective memory. I agree with your resentment. Although, a portion of that mentality could also be considered morale. You're not going to motivate your troops very well if you're pointing out all the ugly things you're country has done. Not a stretch at all. But why? So they can destroy us? Or protect us? To make Halliburton rich? National security? I think motivations matter more than the lie. Some lies need to happen. You couldn't tell 300 million americans your big plan on destorying terror and "just keep it a secret". It may be a really good lie and cover up. It may be an ingenious plan to thwart global terrorism. ...Or, it might just be a ploy by a circle of greedy rich bastards getting rich off of this thing...

Well then I'm all for federal spending on it and I'm hoping they'll be able to grow new bodies to transplant our brains into before I get old and die...

Ok, to clarify, I don't expect your amputee soldiers to wear prosthetics and I would take issue with those who would. However, I do think it's fair to make that challenge. They've made themselves a part of a political message, so we must insist on the intellectual right to challenge their methods used to convey that message. In your particular example, I would see no reason to challenge that method. Now, if an amputee was trying to raise money for disabled gulf war veterans, then I see no political message there, but a certain degree of intellectual right to challenge that method ought to exist too, because what if they exaggerate their injuries? Or what if they inflate the numbers of disabled to get more money? I guess, I haven't clarified anything, rather taken a harder line on this than I originally did. Although, my latter example is closer to being personal and offensive than your example. It's always going to come across as offensive and will hurt people's feelings. There's no way around that, and I don't blame them, but it doesn't make it ok to elevate them to infallible either.

So why don't you back this up Mike? America wasn't stalking and killing these terrorists before. Yet the problem perpetuated. We've been providing financial aid and economic incentives to do business with the middle east. Yet the problem perpetuated. We hadn't done squat to them well into the 80's - yet the problem perpetuated. Seems to me, sitting on our ass and trying to friends is what perpetuates this problem. It's not impossible, but it's reprehensible. And who cares how pissed they are when they already want to kill you for their god. When fighting for my life, morality is the last thing on my mind. Like any good predator, I prefer to be more alive, not more moral. Next time you wrestle with an armed intruder, let me know how your struggle for moral high ground worked out. Just like every other country in the world. It's called international politics and nobody plays fair. Morality and equality doesn't have much of a place in that arena either. We (the US) are actually good and decent about most of it, comparable to the rest of the world and their history with one another. Not the world's police force, but apparently the dumping ground. Smack around anyone that "disagrees" with us? Please back that up with an example. We don't smack anyone around for not agreeing with us. Right. And America is not the "bad guys" either. We prefer to live and concentrate on quality of life. They prefer to obsess over death and religion and focus on quality of worship, which often includes death. Your points 6 and 7 are good ones but you're as obsessed with morality as the extremists are obsessed with their faith. Look, morally speaking we have no right to tell anyone they can't have nuclear weapons - but it would also be stupid to allow illegitimate regimes to achieve them. So, what are you more concerned about - being morally right and responsible for the death of millions of innocent people, including little kids and fluffy animals? Or morally wrong and alive to explain yourself? I know we're not talking about nuclear ambitions specifically, but these are the kinds of reasons why the idealistic "dove" approach doesn't make any more sense than the imperialistic "hawk" approach. What we're doing right now, looks to me more like tactic with a dash of ethical implimentation. If ethically bankrupt, we would have wiped the entire region off of the map with neutron warheads. Instead we've been nice enough to kill selectively, and accept casualties on our side.

Somebody's been watching too many James Bond movies. Al Qaeda is not a soverign nation. Instead, they are supported by soverign nations. That's the ultimate army. They do the region's bidding for them, without any government accountability nor cooperation. Yes, America is hated in that region. So is Israel. So is Britian. So is Italy. So is Germany. So is Spain. So is < insert any nation that doesn't worship Allah and doesn't take their sh!t >. You squash gangs with massive government and people support by squashing the governments that support them or sell supplies to them as well as the gangs themselves. So it's a little James Bond, and a little Francis Ford Copola. We went into Afghanistan because their Taliban government would not give us the SOB's that murdered over 3,000 innocent multi-national human beings. Not because the voting public needed a war to make us feel better. That's an asinine, short sighted analysis if I've ever heard one. Iraq also was not wanted by the people. If we had the support of WWII going into Iraq, then I could at least understand why you might make such a conclusion - but the administration has been going against the grain from this point to present. Americans are sheep, but we're not THAT asleep. The campaign in Afghanistan destroyed much of Al Qaeda and sent Osama on the run. We're happy with that - other than we want Osama. We didn't want Iraq. We want Osama. We still want Osama. All of us agree with that. Securing oil is definitely on the agenda. And it should be. But it's not to make it cheaper, rather it has inflated the cost of oil and jeopardized the republican majority the administration enjoys at the moment. All of which was realized before mobilizing a single piece of equipment eastward. Anyone who thought this would make GWB popular, would be an idiot. GWB and the administration is a lot of things, but they're not stupid. Try not to let your ego shadow your better judgment.

On the contrary, humans have been taking small steps here and there basically trying to build themselves. Robotics try to mimic our movements and all attempts at human interface seek to resemble us - not us resemble them. Computers and software looks more like humans trying to build a brain - again advanced human interfaces seek to appease our behavior. I could see little applications of computer hardware and software here and there to enhance humans, but not much more than that because I see humans going to organics. It seems to be our desire, whether we realize or not, to build ourselves outside of the design of nature as we know it. I see humans going to organic processes to build. It's much easier and cheaper to give instructions to something and allow it to build itself, rather than constructing multi billion dollar manufacturing processes to build it. We will be enhanced by technology, but it won't be shiny metallic computer looking stuff - it will be ugly, slimy, slippery, bloody organic stuff. Just my two cents....

Then you should have no problem giving me the respect of an actual argument. That one liner is ego. For now, I guess I'll note your answer as you never thought of it. Which, is important, because all of this terrorism you mention is focused in Iraq at the moment. Money is being spent, soldiers from all sides are engaged and on the move - rather than festering and building slowly all around us peacefully - like just before 9/11. I'm not saying this is a really great thing. I'm just saying it's plausible and makes tactical sense. We were at a state of war with Iraq, co-existing under a ceasefire agreement that Hussein had violated over and over again on at least 9 different counts. Hussein was NOT a friend of us either. In fact, we just kicked his ass and disgraced him about a decade earlier, hence the ceasefire. 9/11 shook the american sheep and snapped them back into reality - momentarily - and gave them a taste of the reality of the murderous extremists that the middle east cannot or will not control. First thing we did was go after the "gang" in Afghanistan. Hmm..but funny how they weren't quite as interested and optomistic as you've been in this thread - they basically said f*ck you. So, our first attempt at scooping up gangsters police style, as you suggested, didn't work. Iraq was not a terrorist nation any more than Home Depot is a contractor. But they have the supplies and a mutual enemy, while desparate for money. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Exactly how nice do we have to be? Money, Tourism, open borders - we're basically a crack addict on their oil. Do you really believe this sh!t about the big bad america makes life sucky for the rest of the world? Do you know exactly how many times you have to say something over and over again before people just start believing it? We were their rich buddy they made fun of for decades before they started bombing us - starting in the late 70's I believe. We even tried to help get the Russians out of Afghanistan for them. We've sold them military toys and trained a fraction of that damn continent by now. Don't lecture me about being nice. We've been fair. That's all we should have to be. Extremists are nuts and illegitimate regimes and dictators are inheriting and gaining access to the really dangerous stuff mankind has been spreading about the globe. Look at Iran and North Korea. Do you really trust a death obsessed culture like that with WMD's? Are you really so naive to risk your children's lives on that on? Because it's likely not your kids that will suffer, but rather some other innocent person's child that just happens to live in the strike zone of these nations that can't defend themselves.

I've never heard him mock McCain, particularly for the fun of mocking McCain. No one is going to enjoy that. I imagine what he probably did do, is mock McCain trying to use his POW history to create the "one-way street" scenario above. But I've never seen McCain do that either, so I highly doubt any of this has happened. No, I reject the notion that sick crippled people can't be criticized for using their sick and crippled attributes to further their cause, politics, etc. If it's for their cause, generating some money, I don't think anyone would have a bad thing to say. But inject yourself into a political debate, then you take your licks like the rest of them. And by Fox's own admission, he's a big boy and can take it, so what's the problem?

Well my first thought is why? I don't understand what is to be gained by forcefeeding dogs and taking chunks out their thighs. Without understanding why, critical thinkers are left wondering what the "catch" is. And I think Dak has a good point in that if there was a good reason for doing this, but PETA still didn't agree with it, then PETA isn't going to share that reason - kinda like lying. I do believe that. My second thought is, if this is happening at Iams, then what about the other dog food and accessory manufacturers? I would have a hard time believing Iams is the only one. So, it could actually be worse than what you've presented here. Which leads me to, how in the hell do I feed my dogs without empowering this kind of animal treatment?

SkepticLance - Have you ever considered the idea that perhaps Iraq is nothing more than a point of focus for terrorism created by the administration? That perhaps it is the american government outsmarting Islamofacist murder clubs by giving them a decoy, for lack of a better word, to concentrate on? Have you ever considered that perhaps, rather than play softball and negotiate with them for decades and decades, like everybody else tries to do and fails, that maybe it would be better just to take the lid off and let the fighting climax to its natural ends? They seem to be obsessed with death, so why should the current situation bother them any? Also, irregardless of all of that, what exactly is the point of your multiple posts condemning the Iraq war? Were we, the united states, supposed to bake brownies and invite Osama and his buddies over for tea? Would you treat your neighbor like that if he waged war on your family? Would you feel obligated to prove yourself to him? Try to change your image so he'll like you better and maybe stop attacking you? Or would you behave like most other humans and see his opinion of you to be his problem, which gives him no right to attack you? Are we supposed to believe that Al Quada recruitment would stop as long as we kept doing what we were doing before 9/11...which was absolutely nothing? What exactly should the US have done that would have peacefully removed America from the terrorists targets? I really want to know, since you seem to know so much about what not to do...

Whatever you do, don't ruin the awesome set up of this forum. It's hard to read posts and quotes in other forums. I don't know if it's the color shading or what, but that's something I've always like about this forum - ease of reading and interpreting the posts - tracing back the quotes and so forth. Whoever is responsible for its current design did a great job on it. But black is much cooler...generally always.

Damn Dak...I feel cheated now. I wish I would have read your post first. I guess human's crazy love with fluffy animals can misguide them.

Very true. So, does cancer, MS, MD or etc research receive federal funding?

I don't think we've been buying Iams. Beneful, I think is what my wife likes to get. We have two yellow labs, and one little rat dog my wife calls a Papillon. This is a disgusting video, from what little I saw. I'm all for boycotting them. Sounds cool to me... Same here

Did anyone see the Fox interview with Stephanopoulos this weekend? Apparently Fox's reply to Rush's charges are to validate just how weak and fragile he is, and remind us that we are not allowed to criticize sick or crippled people, even when they criticize others. He used the "cripple card". This all I can find as far as a transcript, at the moment. Those who are being pitied, don't see themselves as pitiable? Then why can't we criticize him and this TV ad, like we would criticize any political ad or position, without him coming back with "the community was really hurt by it" and "this brings up the spector of shut the curtains and suffer; we don't want to know"?? Rush pointed this out in the same program, just minutes after his comments about Fox. That using people like Fox is always a one way street. Fox can say or do anything he wants because he's got a disease and blah blah blah, but no one can say anything back or they're just a mean spirited hate monger! Why does everyone insist on making Rush's predictions come true? I personally like Michael Fox and I think he is handling a polarized political issue quite well if you subtract the crybaby "that's hurts my feelings" impulse. He made several excellent points during the interview, and I was impressed with his disposition and general attitude. I wish he, more than anyone else, would address the SCNT process and shut the republicans up about cloning a human. And I still don't see the point in doing the bidding for McCaskill, quite possibly the dirtiest, most hypocritical politician in Missouri right now. He should be doing these commercials for the amendment 2 vote - not getting democrats elected for disingenuous reasons. This is a tough one. Actions ultimately speak louder than words. His actions are arguably deceptive, while his words are convincing.

Mike - Install a couple or more spacers at the top of your sliding glass door. They're fairly cheap and all they do is fill in that extra space at the top of your door which is used to lift the door off of the track. For less than 10 bucks you should be able to at least keep them from getting in through that door, short of breaking the glass. I hope you have a stick for securing it closed as well right? If not, buy a 2X4 and cut it down and they'll never get your door open again.

Well in that case you don't have to cook anything to eat. Peanut butter (all natural to avoid transfats) and whole wheat bread pack plenty of calories and protein and that's cheaper than a couple of burgers at mcdonald's and it will feed you many times over. There's plenty of food in the grocery store a homeless person can chow on that's less exensive and healthier than fast food and doesn't require any facilities for preparation.

Admittedly, I'm on the fence on this one at the moment. I really do see both sides. I'm leaning towards considering it a human because I can't accept size or number of cells as the magical threshold to being granted the label of human. On the other hand, I can't see a microscopic glob of cells as human either. Like you said, it isn't any more human than any other arbitrary glob of cells. So, it seems to me this whole debate AGAIN comes down to when a fetus, embryo, whatever, becomes a human being with rights to live. In terms of whether or not to pass Amendment 2, I don't care if it's a human or not, cloning or not, I'm all for it. But, in terms of the language in the Amendment, I still see the controversial "beginning of life" issue in need of resolution before that can be determined.

Nice point. It's the same logic I use on my kids too. If you're going to act like a child, then you're going to be treated like one. You bring up some other good points about the affects on society as well. Freedom of personal choice isn't always free from affecting others like it may seem.

So how does a beetle contribute? A coyote? A monkey? Human brains are so similar in style and arrangement, materials - I would have a hard time believing that only humans could form Tiops. And what constitutes a creative thought? And how could creative thought put together that which hasn't been thought of yet? Why would it take Einstein, literally thousands of years after the dawn of homo sapiens, to figure out that which supposedly came to be by creative thought already? Or what about earlier hominids? We're not even sure some of them even had creative thought, let alone the thoughts necessary to do what you're suggesting.

In our case, we were actually refinancing. We had a fixed rate, at a horrible rate, then refinanced with an ARM. I was really nervous about doing that, but it cut our house payment down a couple hundred bucks a month which saves us almost $6,000 over 3 years. Closing cost were roughly $3,000, so it made good business sense. We had already planned to move in a couple years or so, and I'd never sell a house outside of spring or summer, unless I was forced to. So, I wonder if I'm contributing any to the housing bubble numbers...

IMM- First of all, you're abusing the red herring. I'm calling ALF on you... I don't have the drive to match your post, you have defeated me. That said, I will close with a last ditch recap. I think it's important to understand that the explanation of human behavior lies in nature, yet people throw up their hands in disgust at each other without any capacity of forgiveness, apparently not realizing that the deck is actually stacked against us. Any "decent" and "desirable" behavior out of us, had to overcome a long list of despicable impulses that we were BORN with. I don't think we give each other any credit for that. Whether or not a consequence is desirable depends on the structure of the group. A particular action can be good for nature, bad for the group. Like death. It sucks for members of the group to die - for the group. But it's great for nature, necessary to continue it's cycle. That's all I have really said. And yet paragraphs of asinine analysis by both of you have clouded this quite basic summary of reality. It doesn't really matter if you agree or not, that's simply the way it is. The main point I was making about the groups was that they are a natural product of pack behavior and therefore fit in my naturalist point of view. It doesn't really matter what group you're referring to at any point in time, your cooperation within them is a natural thing, therefore suspending despicable behavior within it, while commiting these same acts outside of them fits my unpopular point of view. But it's not perfect, there are still contradictions with my perspective, I admit that. But it still makes far more sense to me than a rigid logical flowchart where every action I take or don't take has to be thought to it's most logical ends creating a bland, sterile - quite unnatural - existence. I can't accept that. Some quick notes: We ought to do what we've done for 5 million years because apparently it worked or we wouldn't be here referring to stuff we did 5 million years ago. I didn't make that clear the first time, apparently. There's no such thing as the Scholastic Fallacy, I made it up. I was demonstrating his absurdity by being absurd. Rhino and I got a kick out of it. I know about the Is-Ought, and I disagree with it's application. I think you can infer an Ought from an Is in the right application. Just like I disagree with the Naturalistic Fallacy. Those that use these terms seem to have been "taught" these concepts. I challenge these concepts at their base. If you didn't accept these supposed fallacies soley because professor so-and-so told you so, then you should be able to argue their merit successfully. I haven't redefined any words. The words in question are subjective and you just don't agree with it. Morality: Purely subjective. I said morality is a man-made construct. We invented morality via in-group, out-group pack behavior. It promotes a certain kind of behavior by deeming things right and wrong. I haven't redefined it's meaning whatsoever. I said what it does, not what it means. Good: Purely subjective. I can define good however I want. You've read the naturallistic fallacy so you should already know this. I think natural = good. I haven't redefined it's meaning whatsoever. This is the biggest misunderstanding I've seen in this post. Maybe I should have said, natural behavior = good. Whatever, seems quite simple to me. I make this conclusion from the perspective of the universe, not myself. And partly because it seems conceited, and naive to think my silly human logic is somehow better than the very processes that created it. I think you've boxed yourself in with logic. I never said logic was useless, I said it was overrated. I believe very strongly in logic. After all, I'm a logic minded person. Center brained, strong in math, patterns, analysis. Typical dull hippie type. I've found there's a limit to logic. Not everything is logical. I tried to explain that and it just flew past you. Not everything we do is logical and not everything we do needs to be logical. That seems to be hard for you to accept. Balance. It would be worth your while to think on that. Maybe you wouldn't hate the human race so much. Other than that, I'm done with this thread. These concepts will come up again, I'm sure so we'll be able to go at it again.

Do you actually read anything? It IS cloning. There's nothing to debate. From Wiki: From Dictionary.com: The only difference here is that we're not growing a human to full term. And I don't even care if they do! But quit lying to yourself, geez... The irony is, I'm the one who first pointed out that the first line of the Amendment 2 reads : (1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being. They are very clearly ATTEMPTING to clone a human being, at the very least. This is the ambiguous wording they are talking about. If I beat you about the head with a baseball bat, am I attempting to kill you or hurt you? It's all in how you look at it. You're worse than Rush and O'reilly. You haven't even read my posts or attempted to understand SCNT - yet you go off in your posts like you know what you're talking about. No wonder you don't think MJF did anything wrong...

Fair enough, but I just meant in terms of academia, why not impose a full disclosure of ingredients with calories, fat - even trans-fats specifically? I was on Minsky's pizza's website the other day (which, by the way, is the most amazing pizza in the world) and noticed they had a nutrition link. Out of curiosity, I checked it out and sure enough they have the same information available as you would see on any product in the grocery store. Fat, calories, etc. And there's no law making them do that. Why are they doing that? Probably because the public wants them to. The public is becoming more health concious ( quite a bit late in my mind but...) and they want to know what's in their food. Minsky's, being in competition with the other pizza joints, are doing what businesses do when they recognize a need that they can provide - anything that will get them a leg up on business. Sooner or later, all of them will likely do this and it will become common place. Then the next fad will sweep the public and they'll cater to our whims yet again. The power of the consumer is drastically under-rated.