ParanoiA

I completely agree. We're ready for a woman president, and the dems are too, just not that woman. Obama spoiled her party.

Well, there most certainly is an element of culmination of events. I know I've received a phone call on the matter, and I do believe he got an ISS for one day about two weeks prior to this. So, you're right in that it's not as if just out of nowhere they kicked him out for a little thing. On the other hand, all of the pre-events were dealt with. We did punish, his school punished - he then served his time and then he's right back at it. (Well, he served his school's sentence, but he wasn't finished with mine) It's weird because, if this were violent crime, he'd be locked away in an institute. If this were flagrant acts of disrespect in the form of cursing teachers out, refusing to cooperate, outright insubordination, then we'd be talking about drastic psychiatric intervention with professionals and people much smarter and equipped than I. But we're talking about chronic inappropriate comedy - which certainly smacks of disrespect but in a more subtle form. Hard to see just how "horrible" it is, to the point he needs the same punishments as the hard core troubled teens.

The representative body is at question though. If you reduce district size to 50,000 then we will be left with thousands of representatives. How manageable is that? If we're going to have to deal with that kind of number, then why not invite a form of direct democracy? Isn't that even better? It's still a republic. The power still comes from the people. I've never really understood the insistence that agents or representatives be a requirement to be defined as a republic. Although, I admit, the lexicons are certainly playing along. It's interesting, regardless. It would seem to be better to increase to as many representatives as we could manageably get away with.

Interesting OP. Disregarding the introduction of new problems, a direct democracy would seem to solve much of the issue. I know, I've always preferred it, although I admit I haven't researched the ramifications enough to be passionate about it. The representative democracy seems to be nothing more than a compromise forced by the seemingly unmanagable complexity of direct democracy. I would like to see a hybrid, where the representative serves as more of a default, while the people can use their weight at any time to insert their authority. Not sure how that would look logistically.

Definitely reflects the distrust of each other in society today doesn't it? Well, it's not as if it wasn't earned. Teachers have gone too far in the past and helped to cement the notion that 3rd parties shouldn't touch their children. I just wish I could sign a "beat his ass" exception slip.

That's certainly a fair assessment, but I think it's a bit naive and fool hardy to assume that the higher ups will never risk their own asses. Their culture has proven susceptible to the ultimate sacrifice to exercise murder against their enemy. To presume the Imams aren't EVER going to sacrifice their whole country to execute mass murder is to presume they don't really believe in their own rhetoric. Ultimately, are you sure you can depend on your analysis if they were to be cornered? And that doesn't just mean the US. At any point in the future they could find themselves cornered by some other infadel. I'm not convinced they won't go out in an unprecedented national suicide-murder binge if pushed into it.

That's a perfect compliment of both dilemas. I like that. Then he has a definite "minimum sentence" to weigh out during that crucial moment, with the possibility of it being worse depending on how bad his actions were. Well, I have tried a variation on this. My latest tack has been to remind and instill in him that these teachers are people. Somebody's mom, or sister, or grandmother, daughter. I asked him if he would walk up to a little ole lady crossing the street and curse at her - of course he said no, and smiled at the absurdity. So, why curse at her when she's in a classroom rather than the sidewalk? The other thing I've tried to do lately is to alter my take on rebellion. He's going to question authority, and nothing is really going to stop that. So I've tried to teach him to use respect, operate within the rules, and challenge with dignity. He does this with me quite well. That's partly why I'm baffled. If he disagrees with my rules, he makes his case respectfully and there are times I have reversed or altered them because he made a good argument. Maybe that was bad, since I'm sure that will never work with school policy. Makes a nice bumper sticker, but doesn't work on teens. I pointed this out to my teen as well. Teachers don't tell you to go **** yourself or call you a bastard and repeatedly tell you how stupid you are. Teachers DO give respect. We don't even think about it. They get cussed out, and figuratively spit on daily. I never see them lose it and resort to the level the teen age monsters do. That is teaching by example. Even the "jerk" teachers lead by this example. But most teens don't give them the same level of respect they're given by default - even the ones like mine, who haven't even earned it. I was surprised to see my son react to that point a little bit. Especially when I merged that point with the point of them being "people" - that deep down inside, many of these teachers that smile and deal with his insubordination may actually be wishing they could put their hands around his throat, but are "disciplining" themselves not to. Oh my god. This is the coolest post of yours, ever. Hands down man. I get your point, though. And I think corporal punishment falls in that category of immediate consequence. Not sure about testicular shock therapy, but... ____________________________________________ Kind of losing track from the corporal punishment bit. The reason I like corporal punishment has to do with that I think it's appropriate for. My son didn't get suspended because he told a teacher to screw off, or blatanly disrespected an authority figure. He got suspended for blurting out a phrase in the middle of class, while they were watching some science documentary on rocks, that got laughs. Some chick on the film says "oh wow, that paper clip scratched that rock" - then my sons blurts out "no shit you idiot". And the class laughed and he got sent to the office, suspended. That's overboard. His education is LESS important than that? To me, that's a couple of swats in the hallway.

No kidding. I work tuesday thru saturday, so friday is my thursday. It was a long night...

Hmm, you may have a point there. I know I've always shied away from the notion because I didn't like the idea of them knowing their exact punishment and then weighing the consequences. But now that you mention it, it actually makes sense, since that's exactly what I want him to do - think and weigh and choose wisely. Good suggestion.

I have a question: Has any other region in the history of the world produced and celebrated more suicide-murderers than the middle east? Even close? While I don't support military intervention to stop Iran from getting nukes, doesn't the issue of fanatic religious infatuation with suicide bombing, self sacrifice and martyrdom cross anyone's mind? I think many of us in here have equated theism and religion with delusion, compared them to belief in "purple unicorns", or "sasquatch" - delerious fairy tales of the weak minded and intellectually defficient. Yet, suddenly, when it's the middle east and not the US, we're all comfy with the notion. I smell a double standard. I've never even heard Bush say the word "god" or "jesus", after listening to many speeches over the past 8 years, much less pimp religion onto the masses in any fraction that resembles the intensity and unification of religion and government in the middle east. Sorry, Rev, but I'm not buying it. All of Bush's policies and positions, most of which I can't stand, are consistent with traditional american culture, which cannot escape itself from the influence of the christian culture - even for non-christians. It's all history. There's nothing religiously fanatic about Bush in the least. Which is actually the scary part...

I expected that answer, as I realize how the question sounds. Actually, we're fighting nature here. Short of an all out military style upbringing, he's got rebellion bred in the bone. All of the men on my Dad's side of the family are strong independent types, question authority, and etc. My parents were both working folk, with high standards and expectations - I just wasn't having it. I was always in trouble and they did the best they could. They took me to therapists, workshops - the whole nine yards. Honestly...I was smarter than they gave me credit for. I could see through all of these therapists' questions and chose my answers according to what I wanted them to know or think. School was boring and being the "short" kid, I used humor and rebellion to get friends. Mine is doing the exact same thing. I recall many things from middle school and high school that were made better with teachers empowered to whip my ass. You don't blurt out curse words to get laughs, nearly as often, when the teacher has proven to paddle you for such things. Same with others. He doesn't act like this around me. And he's never been outright disrespectful until his teens. I can't go to school with him. Rebellious kids are not going to give up their rebellious nature or tendency when mom and dad aren't around - when the stick is not there to enforce order. So, I understand your answer, as an impulse, but it's just not accurate reflection of our parenting. Yeah, this is all in place. My punishments are about levels of privilege. Which, incidentally, is exactly what the psychologists at a local behavior therapy institute here in town recommend. I take away privileges, or restrict them and give them back when they've earned them, dig themselves out of trouble. Works great on my younger teen, and worked on both of them all of this time until now that my oldest has discovered his school can't make him do anything and none of my punishments are bad enough to make an "appearance" at that crucial moment when they weigh the future consequences against the immediate reward of accolades by the class. I really feel that's the crux of the issue. Teens live in the moment. I know I never considered the amount of trouble I'd get in with my parents later - that never stopped me from doing the wrong thing now. If the punishment is not as immediate as the reward, I don't see how a teen will actually consider it. Unless, of course, the punishment is disproportionately outrageous. I'd like to hear from someone who has a more rebellious natured teen. Not typical teen angst - that's common and those parents really can't relate, everything seems rather simple to them. "Typical" behavior would seem to be the goal of the design intent of any school system. So, naturally, they think it works fine.

Just wondered what everyone's thoughts were about corporal punishment in public school. I've been utterly frustrated with the ineffective disciplinary techniques used by public schools today - which has degenerated to sending them home for a vacation (ususally called suspension), or tattle telling to the parents. Because they are impotent and can only utilize the carrot - no stick to be found. I find myself contemplating military school for my oldest teen, guilty of chronic suspension (well not quite that bad, but this is the 3rd time this year). But then I'm also contemplating the fact that he's not half as outrageous as I was in school. The things they suspend him for are ridiculous. I was only suspended a couple of times throughtout ALL of high school. And I was a problem for my parents, no doubt. But the school gave me swats for my silly outburts. If I wanted to make the class laugh, it cost me out in the hallway. For my son, they send him home. Send. Him. Home. For an inappropriate joke in the middle of class? I feel like I'm not getting my money's worth out of the school. Any authority rebel, at any level, walks all over them, with ease. At least someone answer me this: What could you possibly teach your teen that will cause him/her to be respectful of authority figures and behave appropriately, with no immediate enforcement?

My two cents...the only way to be non-interventionist about Iran is to follow through with an essential complete withdraw from the middle east. Maintaining the status quo, while trying to demonstrate good will by not interfering with their acquisition of nukes is definitely asking for terrorism of a whole new order. If you're dead set on maintaining a military presence in the middle east then they will remain our enemy and we'd better interfere with any more of them getting nukes. If you don't want to interfere with Iran, then you're going to have to prove we're not their enemy. This is the choice I would make, obviously. I think that means removing our military hold on the region, to remove the incentive for easy terror recruitment.

What I've found refreshing is the number of african americans that oppose him. Thinking a little deeper, asking why they should vote for some guy that "hasn't done anything", over a woman who clearly has more experience and seems better suited to the job. The fact he's a "brother" just doesn't cut it. Honestly, I didn't think that would happen. I would have thought he'd carry 99% of the black vote - "representation" codified in the presidency. So, right or wrong, I'm impressed with the insistance of many black folks to demand a better hand.

I don't know why you have an issue with our posts, they've been interesting. If you're not down with "discussion" then why discuss with me? You know me, Lockheed. You know my nature. I thought we were here to get in to it, expand our thoughts, evolve our thinking, critically analyze things and hopefully do it with respect to one another - not an ego driven debate. You're posts prove that you're trying to "win" something. That's not productive and I believe is the source of your problems with our exchange. Otherwise, you'd appreciate the dialoge and the directions we went with it. You made great points, I don't get your negative take on all this.

I don't know anyone that actually polices conversation to the point that every specific claim they make is taken to task, or even assumed a statement of fact, even though it really is. Hell, all of our posts are filled with repeated claims that most of us would probably not be able to support, far from "statements of fact". We don't need that kind of precision to have a typical discussion and would destroy most communication. But that doesn't mean that precise language doesn't have its moments. Skeptic's point was valid. Strong atheists have the same burden of proof as theists. But the Cylons do. And they will totally eff up the Romulans before they figure it out.

This seems right to me. I don't see the need in state legislation on marriage in order to use the marriage as a good excuse for citizenship. I'm sure there are other values considered in the citizenship process that aren't legislatively state sponsored values. What I get really sick of, is this idea that "married" folks should get an extra tax break, or for that matter that they choose to have children gets them a tax break. This makes no sense to me. "Hey guys, I want a new truck, so I'm going to need the rest of you to pay a little more of my taxes, thanks a bunch".

No breaks John. Claims are statements of fact. By the way, I didn't see any claims in that post except from Guy 1. Guy 2 seems like a real dumbass too. He could have supporting evidence from the fiction book the civilization came from. I would have made the claim.

Sure it's possible. I never said it would never be possible - that mankind will never evolve to the point to interact with deity, or even become deity. I was merely discussing within the context of the present. Presently, it is utterly impossible by any stretch of the imagination. You sure love that word. But it never stopped me from replying to your points or allowing a discussion to expand. I don't even bother classifying what's a strawman and what isn't, I just reply to folks - I discuss. I don't bother trying to police their thoughts. Not sure what the point is. Strawman seems to be used to win ego battles, not logical ones. But feel free to keep throwing it out there. Now, to your point. When you said "saying Civilization X does not exist", I interpret that as a claim. A claim is a declaration of fact. Again, I'm only being overly literal since that's the whole point of this part of the discussion. Those who make claims get the burden of proof. You personally didn't make the claim, rather your argument supposed a claim. This is also what makes it difficult to discuss with you. You have a tendency to forget the context of points. You read each post as if it's brand new, without scrolling back to remember what got us there. Sorry if that insults you, I really don't mean to, but I feel it necessary to point out since it's causing problems here. Because my analogy is just as unobservable, presently. I don't need deity to make the point. Deity invites the supernatural and whole bunch of juicy anti-science to evade points with. I'd rather stick with an analogy that doesn't allow you to use the supernatural to ridicule and use as a red herring. Thanks for confirming my suspicion. You still haven't accepted that claims are claims, whether positive or negative, they are equal in the eyes of scientific methodology, and carry equal burden of proof in terms of fact declaration. Accept it. You forgot the strong atheists. No distractions. Rather keeping you honest by pointing out that the context of the claim makes no difference as to the burden of proof. I would suggest re-reading my last post, since I've edited it and added your argument that contains the "statement of fact" that you don't think requires any burden of proof.

So you can't make claims without proof. Remember? That's all we've been talking about here. Ah, but you CAN say the same of deities. You just opened the possibility when you said it could take 10 years or a 1000 years. I said my civilization can't be falsified today, since you can't search there. Your reply circumvented time and suggested an evolved set of tools can eventually falsify it. Well, given another 1000 years we may evolve to finally detect deity. You just arbitrarily chose to believe that we, and our tools, won't evolve to that point, which, ironically, is a statement of faith. Nevertheless, until you can follow through with the testing in 10 or 1000 years, you can't make the claim my civilization doesn't exist. And, likewise, I can't claim that it does. Asserting with confidence is not the same as stating something as fact. This whole sub-discussion is about splitting hairs between claims and doubts. "Asserting with confidence" and "declaring a fact". No one said that it did. I've consistently said that when you make a "claim" then the burden of proof is on you. Whether that claim is a counter-claim against something else, or a brand new claim without a countering side. Doesn't matter. A claim is a claim is a claim. The burden of proof is on theists and strong atheists - both. You totally missed my point by a country mile in those last two replies. I really don't know how else to word it. I'll try to go back and grab quotes of yours to make my point, but I'm apparently not being clear because your replies are way out of range. I'll give it another try when I get a bit more time. ________________________________________________________________________ Edit: Ok, here's where I concluded that you were shifting the burden of proof to those that are making the claim that something exists, regardless of your claims that something doesn't exist. Saying it doesn't exist is a claim. Saying "I believe Civilization X does not exist" wouldn't carry any burden of proof. The former does. Keep in mind, I'm only being pedantic about it since that's the point Skeptic was making. Technically speaking, it's a claim. Further, what I thought you were doing, was pushing the burden of proof onto those that make "positive" claims of existence, and saying that those that make "negative" claims of existence don't own any burden of proof. That was why I went into the bit about "what if no one ever made the claim of god" yet someone DID make the claim "there is no god". I don't know if that clears anything up, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

But it doesn't explain personal experience. Remember, we're not saying it's the ONLY possible reason for the experience, just that it does explain the experience. You can't use the absolute that god explains nothing. I see your point' date=' here, but I think you're arguing semantics. What was gravity before it was called "gravity"? What was magnetism evidence OF before it was called "magnetism"? There is evidence of hypotheses we haven't even dreamt up yet, but they are not evidence OF something until we define that something. That something, is a hypothesis. Evidence of something may [i']lead[/i] us to form a hypothesis. 'Gee, why does stuff always fall down?' But without a hypothesis, what is the evidence of? What scientific paper do you write that supports your relevance to evidence without referencing what the evidence is for? I haven't seen him argue on the side of faith and belief in god, I've seen him argue against the misuse of science. Kind of like how we'd like to see Muslims argue against the misue of their religion promoting terrorism.

Well then what's the value of the statement? There's obviously some measure of choice here, so consequences and blame are perfectly valid discussion points I would think. I would reject the logic in those notions, but as long as choice is measurable, then consequence seems natural.

Nice post mooeypoo, I agree with your distinction that this should be about equal rights for everybody. Well said. And I agree with you here, just that I'd rather not see ANY rights granted nor taken away on the basis of this kind of intimate relationship. Obviously the current trend is to take away those rights, (or keep away) and that's disgustingly wrong. But doesn't this presuppose that homosexuality is 0% choice? I don't think that's any more accurate than it being 0% genetic, or innate.

Hmmm, I hadn't thought of that. But I'll go with my impulse at the moment and give this some more thought. I guess I would have assumed there would be contractual obligations via the adoption process that establish those rights that the state would have to enforce or recognize. Also, as a guardian or parent, there are legal obligations and responsibilities added to you. Like being held accountable for their behavior and so forth. Whereas with a marriage, you shouldn't be held in any position of authority over your spouse, nor be accountable for their actions. So I guess I could see the need for state recognition of the guardian-child relationship, but still not for marriage. That's my premature thoughts anyway. Apparently I need to refine the wording of my position. Gee...thanks John...