ParanoiA

And yet, it's still a valid argument why gay marriage can be viewed differently. I believe that was iNow's charge, answered by Skeptic, as opposed to Skeptic's position on the matter. Heterosexual marriages can make babies without a third party - and do a major majority of the time. Requiring a third party, should disqualify the marriage for Sketpic's conditional statement, in my opinion. It doesn't do anybody any justice to pretend as if there's no difference between heterosexual unions and homosexual ones. Difference is not a dirty word, and carries no consequence, no value judgement.

I wonder how Bill Gate's philanthropy measures up to our federal government's.

Well, either I misread this thread (and the *mandatory* in the title) from the outset or the verbiage in the link has changed. It now says: I don't see any force in any of that. That sounds like good ole persuasion to me. I like it. I would have done it too as I had a hard time paying for my community college. At any rate, ignore my previous post please. And I apologize for not keeping up. The more you centralize and corporatize, the more you disengage from the common citizen. I don't feel like I belong to a city. I belong to a machine. I'm processed. I'm a number. A large portion of my check is taken every two weeks to feed the machine, part of that goes to needy people. Then I go home and tell my kids "no" to most everything they ask since I don't have any money left. I blame this lack of initiative to help the community on this disconnect with the common man. The state takes so much of our money - and we all know people who receive this money - that we have no inclination to give even more. Yeah, there was a time when people in the US did service for their country and it was a time when they had the capacity to do it, and for a country they were proud of.

Well, sure. I'm not disputing any of that. I'm moving past it. In your example above, the entitlement programs created to help ARE the reason for the marriage issue. And that qualifies as a "privilege". That's the part I disagree with. Cancel this silly idea of helping people that fall into category "X" - like a processing plant. You either help single mom, or tell single mom to bugger off. Stop judging single mom. By the way, single moms are on my list of preferred benefactors to financial support. Most of them did their part, they procreated, they contributed to our species - the males on the other hand, most of them run off for the stupidest of reasons and every one of us ought to kick their asses for it. I'm tired of seeing good women fulfill their part of the bargain while some cowardly piece of trash runs away to dump the most intense responsibility we have as a human race on her ill equipped shoulders. Absolutely pisses me off. How much of a man are you when you dump that mess on a young girl?

This would seem like a decent time to reiterate bullet one of my original post on page one. Government doesn't regulate the dictionary. Let free society decide what "marriage" means. Here we have post after post trying to "subjectively" determine what marriage means to this person and that person and yadda yadda yadda. That's the problem with subjective governing - you alienate perfectly valid points of view. Why not just term ALL current and future "marriage" as civil unions? The government should strip all extra privileges from civil unions, as they earn no objective extra entitlement merely because two or more people have committed to a lifetime of "togetherness". Instead, we honor the agreement in the context of inheritance, divorce, insurance...the weirdo legal framework that rewards/punishes "togetherness" by humans. Let people play around with the word marriage all they want. If we're all just pledging a civil union, no matter our sex, our familial relationship, quantity, race, national origin...blah blah blah, the whole nine yards, then nobody is any more honored by the law than the rest.

You know, those appear to be "inserts". Inserts, from what I've read, are basically wood stoves built-in to the fireplace cavity rather than free standing. I love the look of them, however I thought you couldn't leave the doors open. I haven't actually read that though. I concluded that based on the literature about wood stoves causing a chimney fire if you left the door open because of too much air. Now you have me wondering if these inserts would work for me after all. Thanks. I'm going to look further into these. Jotul has some nice ones.

Hmm, that's an interesting idea Skeptic. I'm gonna to have to do some readin'...

That's interesting you should mention that. I was reading about the newer water based systems for distributing heat, some of which talk about using a wood stove solution for heating the water. I want to visit a home with one of these systems, in the middle of december.

Oh yeah, see I've looked at those and some others. Definitely nice. But can you use it like a fireplace and leave the door open if you want? Or do you have to keep it shut? See I'm wondering if there's something out there designed to work like an open fireplace, but then be able to shut it and use it more efficiently when I want. I'd like to be able to warm up to a nice open fire, and then close it for utility heating, which would probably be its main job.

Maybe not but his actions are matching his words. I may just end up eating mine...

Not entirely sure how well a thread like this is to be received on a science site, but here goes nothing... It's winter time again and I absolutely love burning wood in my fireplace. Starting it, tending it, everything, I don't know why but I really enjoy a warm fire like that, and I don't mind the cleanup at all. But fireplaces are horribly inefficient, like 10% of the heat generated is utilized, while the rest goes up in smoke. I've read about airtight fireplaces, inserts, increasing the efficiency to 40%. But nothing touches the efficiency of an airtight wood stove achieving up to 55% efficiency - again, from what I've read. Anyway, I'd like to get some value out of this heat and have been considering a wood stove. My biggest issue is the aesthetic loss of an open fireplace and the radiant warmth of sitting next to it on a cold evening. I've even read that leaving a wood stove door open can start a chimney fire from getting too much air. I guess what I'm really wanting is a fireplace and wood stove rolled into one, or something that can play both roles. So, does anyone here have any practical experience with different types of fireplaces, wood stoves? Any advice?

Try persuasion. I realize that's so extreme ( )...but give it a try. Cultivating respect is a problem today too, and it's best taught by example.

It was, with the exception you cited.

Well, we all have our moments.

Which is interesting since the electoral college is a mixture of both...

So it shouldn't matter if the electoral college is grossly misunderstood, and misused? I agree, there isn't a lot of purchase for his argument, but there isn't a rebuttal leveled against it yet that addresses the specifics of it. Just appeals to being antiquated, without apparent understanding of its mechanics to determine such. Over and over people are posting about how valuable popular vote is and should be - a few threads over we're talking about how modern politicians are more opportunist than statesmen. I find it odd that we don't put two and two together here. The popular vote is heavily to blame for the devaluation, and lack of substative discourse between politicians and between the parties and within the public at large - while we dismiss the the relevance of the electoral college and its mission statement to address just that. Weird.

Great point.

Well, I'll concede to your analytical skills here. You're probably right. My feeling was, up until she was selected, that if he went with yet another white male conservative suit, that Obama was going to run away with it. I believe the entry of "minority" candidates, for lack of a more appropriate term that escapes me at the moment, stole the foreground even though it wasn't batted around out loud really all that much. I looked at the Palin pick as a sort of "proof" ploy that McCain is just as fresh, inclusive and ready for change as Obama. I felt, viscerally, that two traditional white male conservatives would just fall flat on their face, in the context of post-Bush animosity and an intelligent black male democrat with talented speaking skills pushing for change as if we'd never heard of such a thing before. Granted, I knew McCain needed the conservative base and a Romney would give it to him, with intellect to boot, but I just couldn't see a chance in hell for them. But I'm no analyst either.

Yeah, it's really pretty silly for the McCain campaign coordinators to scramble and find a scapegoat like Palin. There was no real excitement for McCain, and Palin helped bring what little there was. It's funny how they're trying to blame her when in reality, without her, they would have lost embarassingly bad. I wouldn't be surprised if it looked like 1984 again, with red switched for blue.

Personally, the more I tried to do music for a living, the less I enjoyed it. It's my only release and so if I turned it into my job, then what would I have? I always dreamed of "making it" until I hit my 30's, and then I realized that I don't even want to make it. It would poison the purity of it. It's what makes the radio sound like fast-food music. Commercialized art. Yuck. My advice then, is to consider how art is a release for you and ask yourself if you will still enjoy that release once it is commercialized to feed you. And then more practically, which trade do you feel you have a better chance of succeeding in financially? Sounds like the science route would be more apt to put money in your pocket. None of that might even matter to you, but that's what jumped out at me when I read your post. The "do what you love" thing is cool, but I've never been sold on the notion that should apply to your career. Good luck in your decision.

Oh brother...if Romney gets the nomination I'll puke. Same with Huckabee, but not as violently. Romney looks like he wants to heal me on TV in front of his congregation or "put me in a car" with bad credit - I'm not sure which trumps the other.

Actually it is, in my opinion. Child labor definitely despicable if it is forced, unless it's a punishment. However, you could make the case that education isn't involuntary servitude if you only require the outcome. Similar to taxing the citizenry. You're not forcing someone to perform work, you're forcing them to give up property, that they gained by doing voluntary work. So if the law were to be written that it be mandated that americans acheive "X" in education, then you are not forcing them to attend school, you're forcing them to possess a certain amount of knowledge - that they are free to choose how to attain. Of course, I'm not sure I even like that. I sure as hell don't like the fact that the government confiscates my property to pay for mandated schooling, whether or not I have children attending, and no refund if services are refused. That's some business ethic there.

And the point of the first ten amendments is to restrict the will of the people to override alienable rights. If the will of the people is to hang Riogho, they still can't.

Well I'll be darned. So, I guess it's only their body that's living. Well that does seem to answer my question. Thanks fellas.