ParanoiA

I know you didn't ask me, but this is exactly how I see it. Further, is largely why I don't see an issue with cousins marrying - or any familial union. Marriage is one thing, procreation is another. While I appreciate the presumption of procreation, there's nothing inherent in the title of marriage to dictate that. So I see no justification for any of us to restrict this union because of our normative value systems. On the other hand, if we really do believe that genetic issues are sufficient to give ourselves the authority to regulate sexual partners and/or parents, then it should be consistent and that treatment extended to other health complications, like Downs Syndrome and etc. We have to acknowledge that many times this procreation will not result in any health problems at all - so, we're obviously eliminating potentially sound offspring based on a statistical probability. It disgusts me to think we would follow through with that. So, marriage should not be restricted for these folks, in my opinion, regardless. Familial sexual reproduction is the only remotely legitimate point of contention and that invites bias not currently reconciled with other examples of sexual reproduction that produce similar, predictable health problems. When folks are ready to start preventing the birth of all children with defects, then they can talk. I, of course, will then leave the planet. It would only be a matter of time and twisted intellect before negative eugenics becomes the norm - purely slippery slope panic there I realize, but plausible nonetheless. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well, wait a second though. Are you saying their job is to do what they believe is good for us based on unknowables? Or to do what they believe is good for us regardless of what we know? One implies a national security scenario, limited access to intelligence, but the other implies a parental condescension. I think I can appreciate the line you're straddling, but my libertarian threat-o-meter is going off here. It may be a statesman's role to do what they believe is right, ergo going against the plurality of the public, but I would never define the government's role to include dismissing its citizens' will.

I guess that's how I'm thinking about it too. I guess the pressure is a reaction to gravity, not gravity itself. Is that an accurate conclusion? That makes sense to me, as I descend the force of the weight of the material above me becomes greater and greater since the upward force of the material below is becoming less and less - all relative to where I am in the tunnel. While the gravitational force decreases as I get to the core since, again, the material below is becoming less and less. I hope I'm saying that right.

That is precisely why I asked the question. It would seem like the field strength would decrease. So...I wonder how the gravitational field from the surface effects me as I move closer to the core. It wouldn't begin to pull me back would it?

In Greene's Elegant Universe, he describes gravity as a sort of pressure, or at least that's how I inferred it. That objects can be thought of as being "squeezed" into this vacuum of spacetime. So the larger the object, the more it warps spacetime having been pseudo-squeezed into the fabric. With that predictably oversimplified analogy, that got me wondering where the greatest point of pressure can be found. For instance, is the pressure greater on the surface of the earth, or at it's core? I'm assuming the pressure decreases as you travel away from the surface of the earth toward space, but I'm not sure how that pressure changes when traveling away from the surface toward the center of the earth.

Very true, great point. There is added value to the higher price in a legal atmosphere as opposed to nil value to the high price in the currect criminal environment. Cool, I still have a bullet point on the matter.

And yet, they are both funny. Maybe this falls under artistic license. Music, film, painting, drama, comedy, whatever art form you're engaged in, there is no imperative for critical thought. That's not the point of art. Art is more about feeling and emotion. If you're looking for "benefit to society" in art, then you're looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place. Put another way, I've always viewed art ( or at least political stuff ) as the passionate expression of emotional conclusions. There's no critical thinking taking place, as that's antithetical to the ends. John Lennon sings about Gimme Some Truth and I go apeshit with glee because of the passion. Critically? The truth is up to me to find, not up to anyone else to provide. This song is just an expression of emotional frustration enjoyed by those who can identify with it in some capacity. It's not thoughtful. There's no philosophical or political point really to be gained. It's just art. I don't give it credit and responsibility that it hasn't earned. Same with the Bush-monkey bashing. It's funny. It hasn't earned any respect beyond that, so I see no need to criticize it beyond that. No, the problem with these things, as usual, is the ears and eyes that soak up the message. We enjoy art and use it to grow ourselves philosophically. We take art too seriously and pretend as if the message codified in the drama is a thought out conclusion. It's not. It's an emotional conclusion that doesn't have to be critically correct in the least. It can be a total lie and still be appreciated. That's what is so wonderful about it.

And that's always been my take as well. The one exception though, is that we're talking about drugs. The high price of black market goods can be traced back to the added inherent risk due to being illegal. However, even being legal, there's still a legal risk to the product - liability claims if nothing else. I could see our legal structure ruining the potential for lower costs on decriminalized drugs. And that's why I'm asking. I'd love to think that prices will plummet, usage will spike temporarily initially and then taper off, and related undesirables like subjugated prostitution will dramatically decrease, followed by a decrease in overall theft. I'd love to think that, but I'm just not sure that's how it will turn out. Not that it changes my mind any, but it could change my bullet points. Yeah, I've noticed that too which is why I steer clear of that argument. It's an appeal to the motivations of the opposition at the expense of being consistent about our principles. The only exception I'd grant is citing revenue benefit from general product taxation, not health and safety motivated taxation. The federal government would have to roll out a national sales tax to enjoy that particular channel of revenue, in my opinion. But the states could finally start receiving sales tax revenue from a product that's currently untaxed. I don't like taxes, but I also don't like cherry picking taxes.

Interesting. Thing is, crack isn't really cheap. Well, let's just say it's relative. Women strung out on crack will need a 100 bucks or more a day to keep it going - that's expensive, and is a big part of why they prostitute to maintain the habit. So, with this 'direct use' you're talking about, could that lower the price to maintain a habit? Not that I like the idea of someone being addicted, but it would be nice to know that if people are addicted to something like this, that it's not necessarily going to mean losing their savings, house, automobiles, retirement accounts, kid's college money and finally selling themselves. Smoking cigarettes doesn't do that, so I was kind of hoping that maybe that would be a similar benefit legalized drugs would gain, thereby adding another positive point - a reduction in prostitution, theft, and etc. Absolutely. My issue is about motivation. When someone is clearly profiteering, utilizing their skills to make a living, then I don't see the issue. However, when someone is strung out on a substance, like the aforementioned crack/crank habit, then it's more out of desperation, and I find that distasteful. Again, I don't believe I have a right to restrict that person from following through, but I think it leaves them more subjugated, even if it's of their own choosing.

I agree. I've always designed my site with white text on black background. For some reason it does seem easy on the eyes, while not looking so generic and uninteresting. But I have no idea about the rest of the human population. Maybe we're a minority here.

Victimless crime, in general, needs to be reviewed. One question I have is what it would do to prices of drugs for the users. Would crack suddenly cost 50 cents at QT? Would women actually have to whore themselves to maintain a habit, or could they just scheme for 20 bucks once a week? Also, does it take the edge off the allure for teens? Seems if it's legal, it may be too legit for them to obsess over. Where's the functional need for the drug, gambling, prostitution thug element when they have no market to support them?

According to this article it isn't a problem. http://www.helium.com/items/833112-the-difference-between-hemp-and-marijuana Edit: Just realized Skeptic and I cross-posted. Seems we google at about the same rate.

That's only half the question. Not saying that we're hypocrites as much as I'm pointing out that if we simultaneously support Lincoln's decision for war in 1861 and oppose Bush's decision for war in 2003 based on its illegality, then apparently we're not being consistent with our obligation to the legal status of wars. That's a hypocritical dynamic, and one that may be perfectly acceptable, but we must accept it. That's all. Thought it was interesting. That's certainly true. But you know, I've noticed a lot more critical history in circulation than what I remember in years passed. At the risk of sounding like Limbaugh, we have had a bit of a 'Bash America' syndrome here in america, with a weird anti-pride side effect to boot. But you're right, we all have to filter the bullshit. However, Adams and Hamilton did not and Franklin later freed his slaves. One of things I try to remember when reading about this period of history is that our founders found themselves as well throughout this experience. Jefferson's original Declaration of Independence would make us all far more proud than the molested version we ended up with. And their message about freedom, liberty and self governance is just as romantic as it is realistic, even if they didn't live up to it fully, themselves. The message is beautiful even if the messenger is...say...a sinner.

Well, that's not as straight forward as "they didn't like" though. At least, not with the Wiki information. An "oath of vengeance" doesn't appear to be much other than praying that god will exact vengeance - not exactly terrorism or subversive spy intentions, but one could make the case he was potentially operating in the capacity of an enemy of our state, and perhaps that was the pretense for his expulsion. That said, I'm still not sure they can't do just that - expell someone simply because they can. All they really have to do is make up an excuse, and then proceed, right?

Participating in a related conversation, someone brought this up and I found it fascinating. Turns out, yet again, I'm a hypocrite. And so are some of you, maybe. For a brief recap...the Confederate States of America were established after secession, which was not unconsitutional since there was no language forbidding secession. They had their own government, currency, military - they were as legitimate as the United States. The "attack" on Ft Sumter, then, was the ejection of an illegal occupation following a diplomatic effort to claim their infrastructure. The CSA had even sent delegates to make some sort of restitution for the federal property gained by secession, but Lincoln would not recognize their existence, so compensation was precluded. Technically, and quite realistically, the "Civil War" or the "War Between the States" was an illegal war waged by Lincoln. His troops were occupying foreign territory after repeated diplomatic efforts to remove them, and force was used by the foreign power justifiably. Yet, we revere Lincoln. We celebrate his achievements mainly due to the ends - the noble cause of ending slavery, preserving the union (or re-merging the union). We let the ends justify the means. However, most of us are disgusted by Iraq, the illegal war, and the atrocities, even though here, again, we have similar positive ends to observe. A legitimate democracy in exchange for their despotic thug tyrannt, liberating and raising the standard of human rights and ending the outright violations of it. Another noble cause, brokered by an illegal war. Only this time, we're roasting our president for it instead of celebrating his "strength and vision" for a just world, yadda yadda yadda. Do it in 1861 and you're a hero. Do it in 2003 and you're a bum? I just find these kinds of moral dilemmas fascinating. I'm indicting myself here too. I do celebrate Lincoln, and I do resent Bush. Is it possible that posterity will elevate Bush like we have Lincoln? Will the ends justify the means for them too?

Is this book accessible to a layman like myself? I'm fascinated by these people, and their contributions, but I'd like to think I could keep up with the text.

Perhaps nature has worked around our refusal to stop stupid people from breeding. Now they're going to smack the rope away as they dangle from the cliff...

I'm so dissappointed. I had this vision you were really named John, you wore a fryar's cloak, I have no idea why, but you did - oh and you had "smart" looking glasses. Now...you're just a shadowy blob in the corner...

I think a good example would be to point out the destroyed families of those we have victimized with anti-marijuana laws. I wonder how difficult it would be to get statistics on the numbers of fathers (and mothers for that matter) in prison currently for marijuana charges only. Then we can all simulate by our respective personal experiences the downstream consequences to those families that had their main provider and protector yanked from their lives because of our intolerance to a plant that has killed no one. We can also contemplate, in shame, the pain we have caused in our over reaction to our hypocritical position of selling aspirin over the counter (NSAID's are responsible for thousands of death per year. http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30#nsaid) What we do to violators of our victimless crime laws is reprehensible and will be regarded by posterity as oppressive and tyrannical and will serve as a further example of the inherent problem with democracy, and why a constitutional wall is necessary, and how ours has too many damn holes in it. I would really like to find the stats on the number of people's lives we're destroying right now with our intolerant government sanctioned bigotry. If I find something, I'll come back and post it because, like CaptainPanic said, numbers are really necessary here. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/120/3/e678 According to the Schaffer Library of Drug Policy, drug offenses make up 59.6% of the 1.5 million total american prison population which equates to 894,000 drug offenders. (http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/library/basicfax17.htm) If Pediatrics is correct in their estimate of 54.7% of male prisoners and 65.3% of female prisoners are parents, then at least half of the 894,000 drug prisoners are parents. So, we're roughly under 500,000 parents doing time for a moral behavior violation that did not impact anyone else's rights but their own. I wonder how their kids are doing. I wonder how they took the punishment, er I mean made the adjustment of losing a parent. I wonder how that will effect their growth and development. I wonder how they'll deal with losing the other parent too, since they have to do "double duty" now - and won't it be great to add another single mom with kids to the stat sheets. Even if you're of the mind that it's perfectly acceptable to force your "right way to live", as Padren called it, onto everyone else, how do you justify the total break-up and breakdown of the family unit in response? Do we need to visit the rate of recidivism and how prison culture ruins previously civil people? All this, for a drug that is safer than aspirin and not nearly as intoxicating and debilitating as alcohol? Dumb. Cruel and unusual punishment for the "crime" committed. How is Pot worse than the punishment we're exacting here? I mean, really. All this because we're ****ing stupid? It's a sham. It's a disgrace to our statue of liberty. I hope the history books roast our generations over this.

I like the liberal use of "sock puppet" on this thread. I don't know why but that just cracks me up.

That's what always leads me back to bombing them with cheese burgers and x-box's (pot and chocolate wouldn't hurt either). I really think if people get a taste of life beyond an impoverished quaint nod of class compliance they might stop dying so much for it.

I certainly don't believe Obama won the presidency because he's black. I think he won the presidency for all of his qualities, including being black.

Personally, I loved this song. They always have Sharpton through a bullhorn when they do paroties with his character - cracks me up. It was originally in response to the fawning, sycophantic nature of the reporting when he came on the scene. Chris Matthews on MSNBC going on about a magical feeling running up his leg, while no one was writing hit pieces like we saw on McCain. Decades old junk came out of the closet with Johnny boy, but Obama was true Teflon and nothing in his past. It's basically the conservatives having some fun at what they infer must be Reverand Al Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's perceptions. Obama come lately, stealing their thunder. They still like it because they still think the american people were duped and will soon realize it.

Just going by various dictionaries.... From Dictionary.com: I included all of these since I think they help make a point. Notice how number 6 defines marriage to include a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations. So, can Wal-Mart and Pet-Smart get legally married too? Protected by the laws that establish marriage for their state? Note also how a qualifier ("homosexual") is used to specify gay marriage. There's a reason why it requires another word to make the language clear - homosexual marriage / gay marriage. I think that's a sufficient and entirely reasonable start to determine the definition of the word 'marriage' as it is used in marriage laws. Now, you're turn. What do you see in the law or language that would suggest that same-sex unions were part of the intent of the marriage laws? You know, I'd really like to see this taken a bit further. It would be interesting to explore the natural inequality introduced with granting privilege to hetero unions. I'm ripe for persuasion here. I could easily see standing against current marriage laws based on the offense to equality. Thus far, I've been focused on Prop 8 and constitutional integrity with respect to redefinition only.

Wow, went away for a few days and look where we're at....in the same mud puddle we were in before I left. The deck is stacked on Skeptic and I because there doesn't appear to be any legal precision for individual words - only groups of words. Skeptic points to the legal definition of the word marriage, and gets redirected by Sayo that there is no legal lexicon to speak of. Yet, we have laws that are paragraphs of words that enjoy this "legal" status. But one single word...no "official" inventory for our language here? The word marriage, still to this day, is qualified as between a man and a woman. That's what the word meant and still means. So all laws using that language should be interpreted that way - using the lexicon of the time the law was made; interpreting the intent of the law. (Note: If the original intent is unfair or unconstitutional, then striking it down is a downstream obligation, and I think I'd be on board for that ruling, but this intent needs to be judged in the absence of any consequence first). Just like a dog or cat could not be an "officer", since the word officer is qualified as a person in the definition, a same-sex union is not a "marriage". A "dog officer" or "gay marriage" can work, silly as it may or may not sound to some, but there are no laws for dog officers nor gay marriage - you'll have to make some.