ParanoiA

I would prefer everyone participate in the republic, rather than leave the wool over the eyes of the sheep but have to disagree that it's vastly better. Rock the Vote should be year around, everyday. To promote the suffrage part, but ignore the responsibile lead up to that, is entirely wrong and suspicious. Talk about scams. We put all of this energy at cherry picked times of suffrage, and stay quiet the rest of the time. That almost sounds like a promotion of ignorance, let alone enablement. I don't think any of us would stand for a representative that stays disconnected from everything political except when congress is ready to vote on something and then they suddenly show up to cast a vote. This is law and not to be taken lightly - we all have to live with that decision. And since we are a republic, people have a duty to participate and we really can't afford mass ignorance the way other governments can.

I absolutely love this whole thing and was following it from the beginning. Biscardi looks like such a dunce right now. Gosh, it must suck to be him. I think the guys came forward today though, said they told the story 10 different ways and that everybody knew they were lying.

Thanks, that was great. I think Lutz represents that business rationale I'm counting on and the competitive spirit that wants to exceed the exceptional. I liked his whole bit on being resentful about the Prius and how we needed to leap forward, not just "be competitive". But it all has to play out first. Hopefully they won't disappoint. My main concern is battery longevity. Also, I wonder about the total lifetime of the vehicle when you can replace the battery.

I do appreciate your point here. Someone told me today that negative ads "play to the psychology of what one will lose" whereas positive ads "play to the psychology of what one will gain". So, I can see a place for those. But attack ads? I'm not sure they contribute anything meaningful to the process at all. And you're quite right, why not demand some respect for ourselves and never run them? It's just too bad they work. Someone else made the point that the usual 40% for one guy and 40% for the other guy never change - it's the 20% in the middle - the swing vote. Nothing new there, except I believe that it's that 20% that isn't as educated on the issues and involved in the political process to know better - I think that's why attack ads work, they play to the ignorant. Which is also what bothers me about "Rock the Vote" and other promotions of empowering the ignorant. If you're not going to participate in the republic and be responsible with your judgement and attempt to educate yourself on what's going on, then don't participate at all. To choose willfull ignorance, but show up on voting day is akin to declining to help bake the cake but showing up to eat it. I seem to recall a children's tale of the sort....

Yeah, why pursue crime? Why get all worked up about substance free ridiculously overblown crap like rape, assault, theft, home invasion, child molestation? As long as something is comparatively worse, then anything less has "comparatively little substance". Let's make fun of little kids getting raped and buried by grown men, that's what southpark would do right? The way it was manipulated by our leaders is exactly WHY people like bascule don't want to respect any significance to 9/11. They resent the drama associated with it because they think it's the drama's fault that Bush got us into Iraq. It's not. The drama and sympathy are quite appropriate. The problem, again, was people who are unable to separate the drama from calm, logical reasoning. They "fell" for Iraq, aided by the drama, because we americans invest heavily into emotional logic. The drama itself didn't do it, we let it cloud our judgement - we the people did it. To the OP. I'm cool with the same attack ads on 9/11. Why not? I'm sure there will be plenty of murder on TV that day and this is "comparatively" less substative.

Sounds great to me, as long as he doesn't run around introducing himself as a gay man.

I completely agree. It was a very appropriate venue. The loser was america because both candidates "played" the venue. I thought Rick Warren was quite good. I liked the way he treated the candidates. I got more out of this event than any of the grand standing BS I heard from these jokers during their "debates". I wanted to hear more questions from the likes of "What is your personal greatest moral failing?" Or anything that catches them off guard, forces them to be honest before they have a chance to gauge the damage from such honesty. I, personally, would have been proud to watch Jefferson say those exact words at Saddleback, and I think that says more about Obama and McCain than anyone that piece was written about.

But discrimination is a subjective concept. To pre 1861 americans, they might claim discrimination against them because they own slaves. Discrimination is just a function of whatever is "acceptable to society today". A hundred years from now they may shutter at the thought we "owned" animals and characterize us like we disparage slave owners. So, no, I'm not interested in government regulated prejudice. I don't agree with the laws created that violate that principle. Best for government not to pass judgement on subjective matters, as that's the entry point for individual choice. Sure it was, and we were evolving just like we're still evolving. I don't know how fast things would have changed without violating our basic principles of liberty, but they certainly would have. The mere fact that these laws were created suggests a large, if not a major majority of people agreeing with the ideas of equality, ashamed of their past behavior. Law was introduced to force the minority to assimilate. A noble cause, but invested in the wrong institution. Now, this same institution threatens ALL of our liberty - based on this kind of precedence. Now there's nothing that's off the table. Every freedom I enjoy is up for debate. No matter if it causes direct harm or not. We are completely conditioned to judging each other and using legislation to engineer the society we want. That's the irrevocable harm caused by using the government to legitimize subjective behavior and choice. It was never theirs to do this. Objective harm, was their mandate, individual choice was up to the people.

Obama has not shown me he's ready to lead. I think that's a more accurate way of putting it, because despite how he tries to insist that "being against the war in Iraq" was tough, he hasn't made any tough decisions that I'm aware of. But we also don't know that he isn't ready to lead us terrifically. That's what more experience gets you - battle scars. He doesn't really have any, so it's difficult to tell if he can lead or not. He can lead with his mouth, we know that. But beyond campaign fluff, let's get real here, what is there to show that if we get in a crisis that he can handle himself like a leader - make tough, unpopular decisions? McCain has shown he can be thoughtful in a crisis. He's shown he can make decisions despite the backlash, like from a public not privvy to the details. Obama is so plurally devoted, I'm not sure he could take a position that doesn't blow in the direction of the wind. Just my two cents. Obama is too many things to too many people and is way too guarded and cautious for me trust in leadership. I think that's why the McCain camp is going that direction with their ads - exploiting his tactic of moving to the center.

Aside from the religio angle, I did like many of the questions in this format. Your greatest moral failing? America's greatest moral failing? A gut wrenching decision? Something you've thoughtfully changed your mind on? All good questions. I would like to believe they had no idea what the questions would be prior to this.

That's not a narrow definition, that's quite broad and fair. I'm taking the subjectivity OUT of it, as it has no place here. That's where you get your complexity from here. That's why you're all talking in circles from where I sit. You're all just splitting hairs on the rationale used to abandon prinicple because you don't like what you see other people do with their freedom. I say, tough. I can freely hate you for whatever stupid reason I like. I don't have to let lezbians in my house. I don't have to accept christians on my property. I simply extend this to business. It's their business, their property and they shouldn't have to do squat that you want. This is what gives me the right to gamble, to reject god and religion, to refuse all products and services from hate groups like the KKK, black panthers - practicing what you preach to others gives you the moral ground to preach in the first place. And no business will stay in business with discrimination like that. The state has no business legislating my prejudices for me. Clearly we're going to strip the rights of the doctor, based on our own subjective prejudice, circumventing individual moral choice and liberty, and presume artificial insemination is grounds enough to eject him from the medical community altogether. Haters don't have the same rights as the hated. I don't suppose you'll come to the aid of a child molester being refused Viagra treatment by a doctor who was a former victim? Yes, I'm quite sure you'll kick that doctor out of the field too right? Absolutely disgusting. Also on par for a society rationalizing itself out of its freedoms. What a noble effort. Stop judging each other. It's not your job. If freedom is not applied objectively, then it's not equatable. I would think he's a real asshole. And I doubt he'd get much business, people don't like that attitude - he'll have to do what they do today - fake it. But more importantly it depends on the context. In an ER, that's obviously critical and the hospital is not going to hire people that don't agree to work on people, regardless of race, religion and etc. So if he refuses, he's fired. And remember, the government is an employer and I fully expect a subjective obligation on the part of its employees for equal treatment.

Why not just qualify doctors to their jobs? Let's practice a little freedom here, shall we? I don't see how one can arrogantly dismiss a livelihood of medicine to another person over a difference of moral code and conduct. Unacceptable in a civilized, 21st century free society. Deny the public the benefit of life and health provided by the skills of a person who has an odd belief quirk that effects a fraction of a percentage of their potential career interest in the first place? As far fetched as it may sound, if there's a position somewhere in the hospital that doesn't need someone to inseminate lezbians, he can do it. Seems to me this is about contracts and that ought to settle it. If you take a job and claim to do x, y and z, then you have to or be fired. For critical obligations, there's even law. But I don't agree with any notions of forcing businesses and employees to perform services against their will, for whatever petulant, meaningless reason they desire. If I want to open a fertilization clinic named "ParanoiA's Exclusive Black and Hetro Reproduction Induction Express" and refuse to inseminate anyone who isn't black and heterosexual - hell, I'll throw in christian - then I ought to be able to do it, and refuse service to anyone else. That's liberty. Other people died for it, all we've got to do is accept it.

Thanks iNow. The playlist was a nice touch. My initial take on Obama was that he speaks candidly about his past, who he used to be, but remains guarded about who he is. I was impressed with his admission of drug use, and equally impressed with the lack of backlash about it. He really comes across as if he's intimidated about his stands and seems to hesitate with pre-explanation, but he seems to gain confidence once he commits to it and ends up looking strong. It's obvious to me that he's more about nuance than absolutes. This could be good, implying a more flexible, advisable nature. But also could suggest opportunism, popularism. He paid lip service to our miserable dollar and our chinese masters, so that was good. Heh, and I didn't envy him defending pro-choice with that audience. I think what would be the most interesting would be for the two of them to appear at a notoriously strong atheist venue next week and do this whole thing from that angle - I wonder how their answers and verbiage would change.

Right, I got that part, Lance. Now, let's take the next step. In those states, what happened to the number of victim deaths in the commission of a crime? What about that data? What happened to the number of criminal deaths in the commission of a crime? What happened to the violent crime rate in those states? Where's that data? See, that's what I'm talking about Lance. Restricting guns changes more sets of data that JUST suicide rates. However, the only metric you're using to measure success with is suicide rates. You're not looking at the change in OTHER data to consider as part of the measurement of success. What if, for the sake of argument, there's a sharp increase in home invasions and other violent crime as a result of the criminal element being less worried about an armed public? What if that rate dwarfs the successful gun suicide rate? All I'm trying to point out is that you are arguing an opinion and pretending as if it's NOT an opinion by claiming the data speaks for itself. It only speaks accurately when you're considering ALL of the data. So far, you're only looking at suicide data - you're not looking at all of the other dynamics that change other data when you introduce your gun restriction. So you can stop claiming you're not arguing opinion here. That's all this thread is about - opinion derived from data and lack of data, and your refusal to consider any other data but that one precious metric - gun suicide rates. Ridiculous, particularly for a scientist.

That's a well stated point on Russia and the SSR. I remember growing up in the 80's and using Russia and the USSR synonymously. No doubt, that's entirely misleading. Yeah, this is exactly where I've been sitting. It's hard to for me to work out. We hold honest Abe in esteem for preserving our union with the bloodiest conflict on our soil. Which goes against the notion that a state has a right to secede if it wishes. However, I wholeheartedly admit that it seems obvious that secession be a basic right, to be respected. It would seem to put pressure on the union to earn it's member states - implying a check or balance in the form of merit. That's very attractive to me. On the other hand, it could be argued that allowing the union to be purely a mutual agreement by the member states could be strategically dangerous. Akin to letting your daughter walk the streets in downtown kansas city at 3 in the morning. Sure it's a right, but it's pragmatically stupid. Divide and conquer is a tried and true strategy, historically effective. So, allowing your union to do it of its own accord, without the meddling hand of an enemy, would seem to be a naive, precious gift to a patient imperial power. And perhaps survival basics trump human notions of rights.

Yeah I did manage to catch the McCain half. I could just kick myself I didn't record it because I really liked the format and would have loved to have seen Obama's performance. But I'm sure I can find it on youtube here in a bit. You knew the vietnam stuff was going to make it, but I thought he did a good job making a larger point with it, rather than just throwing it in our face. The christian injection was a bit heavy for me, but I understand the venue and he played them well. Honestly, I just thought he was performing for the crowd. But he did appear witty and friendly. I have to admit, I appreciate his use of "my friends" to address us. My two cents anyway. Well, one cent. I haven't seen Obama's half yet.

I think Lance feels that his data lends a conclusion that is not based on opinion. He seems to think that by exercising mathematics on the data (banning guns = less suicide), that he's not actually expressing an opinion. It *is* an opinion Lance. What about data that might suggest that a ban on guns could equal more non-criminal death? banning guns = less gun ownership by law abiding citizens = more death by the hands of criminals. Just an example of a whole myriad of possible data as a consequence of your exercise in math. The fact that you don't consider the consequences of banning guns - the resultant data of such action in other areas of interest - is an expression of opinion. Whether you like it or not, you are arguing opinion, Lance. I seem to remember Phil having a sig to the effect that piles of data is no more science than a pile of stones is a house. Very appropriate here. Edit: Think of it like an equation. A + B = 7. If you change A, B will change too, otherwise it would not equal 7. Your ban on guns will produce a change in other data in some other area - and you're not considering that data set. We are.

I think this proves insane_alien is an advanced lifeform.

Nicely summarized. The thing is, iNow and I would like to move on to that political decision and talk about rights and how much value you get out of foresaking one or the other. However, when we do that, we get statistics back as an answer. As you've agreed, that's not an answer, that's just data. I don't disagree with the data, so it creates this weird cycle that I've since given up on. The data shows that outlawing automobiles will save literally thousands and thousands of lives per year. However, I'm sure Lance, and most of us, would argue that modern transportation needs are too important and ingrained to dismiss for the benefit of these lives. So if someone were to reply to that point by pointing out the thousands and thousands of lives again and again, then you get this invalid logical loop and the conversation is stuck in the mud. I've acknowledged the data and am ready to talk about the political decision. I don't think Lance is. He's rolling the data and political desicion into one.

I would watch, but the Olympics are far more interesting and substative than these two. McCain: Obama's the anti-christ, he's a celebrity...and that's supposed to be bad..oh and he needs a teleprompter to talk Obama: Uh...McCain is old...uhhh..is part of the problem....uhhh...and doesn't even know we have a problem..uhhhh At this point, I'd rather hear Phelps stumble with elementary thoughts and diction while exalting himself in the face of a humbled Spitz....confusing everyone as what question he's trying to answer. And of course, there's women's beach volleyball and "Nasty Nastia"....I think I know what I'm watching. Tell me how it goes, guys.

Well, perhaps that was a bit dramatic on my part. It would cut my posts and activity here to virtually null. I'm just too wrapped up in writing, music and home improvement to have time to really do this thing here. Happily, the HTTPS solution is working, since here I am at work. Thanks Cap'n. Now, off to see if they've blocked the Olympic coverage...

Heh, yeah I have to ask myself, does it violate my principles to even work at all for a company that would do such a thing? Luckily for them, my principle of eating trumps my principle of not blocking SFN. Oh, and my "tour" is Tues - Sat - so don't worry, I'm not giving them a second of overtime! I do believe this will be my fate. https will be my first attempt, but I'm not sure about trying proxy servers - if they would consider that sneaky or malicious.

Damn, you guys got this all figured out. I should have known. Thanks! I can't wait to try tomorrow.

A horrible thing happened yesterday. My employer has blocked scienceforums.net. I clicked my favorite, at the tip top I might add, and I was shocked to be presented with the "Website Blocked" screen, under the category of MSGBRD. Unless I can come up with a valid business reason, I'm essentially outa here. I can't believe the IT folks noticed my usage enough to block it. Hell, I didn't think I was accessing it that much. I'm a hard, efficient worker, and most people who work with me wouldn't think I have the time to even post here, but I do most of it from work. I can multi-task with the best of them. So why?? I've grown quite fond of the people and the level of intellect here and many of my views have been changed and refined due to this wonderful board. I've become...attached. This is actually kind of depressing. I felt so lost today. Anyone else suffer this fate? I need to be more computer savvy, and figure a way around this...

Well, yeah but you forgot about big brother telling us what we can or can't eat, drink, smoke or ingest by any other creative means. Watching me? Big deal. Yeah that sucks, but it doesn't compare to coercively restricting me from simple, basic human liberties - like paying for intimacy or eating a transfat infested oreo cookie. So yeah, we'll buy it hook, line and sinker. Incrementally, we'll sell out every liberty we have left. All you have to do is redirect problems away from their source and pin them down on some arbitrary element, make it illegal - declare war on it, something like that. That way, the sheeple continue the behavior, poor decision making, thus enabling the coercive machine that feeds off of them. Or maybe I'm just cynical.