ParanoiA

If one person says "I value all human life" and another person replies with "what's so special about human life?" - then I have to examine that question in the context in which it was asked. Why would anyone be so concerned about global warming if our lives aren't special enough to be valued? This is not my opinion. My opinion is that human life is incredibly special. I'm not into this whole self loathing "humans are parasites" kind of pop culture belief system. And I'm fascinated by those who are. I don't know if that's what YDOAPS believes or not, which is why I'm asking.

Geez, O'reilly is such a dick. I mean really. Did I really hear him say he thinks he's amongst the three most important people excluding the president? If that was a joke, it was stupid. And then he repeatedly craps on Stewart's show and his audience. Stewart took it with class but it sure would have been nice to see him bitch slap Billy. In response to your point, though, that's pretty tenuous. O'reilly was conceding that John Stewart is a comedy show as opposed to a news show. I don't know any commentator that would stop in the middle of that conversation to parse "news show" from "talk show". Although I do get the impression that if he was pressed, he would boldly label his show as News.

I actually agree with you. I'm asking YDOAPS specifically.

Absolutely nothing. So why so concerned about global warming then? What's so special about any life?

Just some food for thought... It's not difficult to relate with the impulse to use goverment and law to coerce humans to live and behave as I think they should, as I believe would benefit all of mankind, however it's quite difficult to relate with the follow through of such logic. Just as a scientist would never assume himself above the scientific method, I can't assume myself above persuasion, nor can I relate with anyone else who can. The scientific method is actually a kind of persuasive mechanism if you think about it. It requires that you test and provide evidence to support your theories - to convince "science", so to speak. No self respecting scientist, no matter how convinced of his own theory he may be, would excuse himself from this method. If it were even possible, he wouldn't circumvent the scientific method by using coersion to make the rest of science agree with him. In the same way, I don't see how anyone can seek to circumvent persuasion with coersion with a clear conscience, no matter how altruistic their intent. While persuasion isn't free from defect, it's much further removed from it than forced compliance. Force doesn't require you to be right. Or fair. Persuasion, however arguable, requires you to convince others of their own free will and thought - requires you to be right, or at least plural. So, while I whole heartedly share the view of removing the supernatural mumbo jumbo from our existence, I can only do that by convincing others, not with law. That's at the heart of this thread, I think, because the proposed legislation is built on the notion that people shouldn't provide profit to others feeding their beliefs - which as been implicitly determined false (and is somewhat irrelevant). All of this supernatural crap...is crap. But I must obligate myself to the only method I can rely on to be sure I'm right, to be sure that other's intellect and intelligence has ground through the logic and spit out the same answer I got. Don't we owe that to each other?

Yeah, I remember when that first aired I about fell out of my seat. Hilarious.

Now we get to the guts of it. Our only difference here Snail is that you invest in government and law - tools of coersion - to exercise your nobility, whereas I believe the investment should be in persuasion of free people. For the same reason we're hypocrites for using guns to spread freedom and democracy, we're also hypocrites for using force to practice altruism. I see nothing negative in your long term interests and to contribute to my survival, that's much appreciated, sincerely. I share your vision, though my contribution doesn't likely measure up to yours. You should note that I use every opportunity to convince others to reject unsubstantiated beliefs. It's an important subject for me personally.

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate just how if it wasn't for people like you I wouldn't have a leg to stand on? Are you talking about physics here? How exactly does that make you the authority on what humans should or shouldn't want out of life and what should or shouldn't make them happy? How exactly does your understanding of physics qualify you to determine whether god does or doesn't exist or whether or not someone can talk to dead people? How does your study of any science give you any right to decide the fate of others? I'm finding your whole disposition more insulting each post.

Actually, that's exactly what I get. These customers are happy, or else they wouldn't call back. The market corrects itself. Why the need to step in? If the psychics or card readers aren't making the customer happy, then the customer isn't going to come back. It doesn't matter if the service is as old as prostitution or palm reading, if people like it and want to buy it, why bother them? Until you can prove fraud, I don't understand why you'd even want to. This contradicts this: It doesn't matter what YOU think qualifies as "skewed". I blow some of my money on beer, cigars, DVD's, CD's and tons of musical crap - it makes me happy. And it doesn't do anything positive for the world. For the guy next door, getting a card reading makes him happy. It doesn't matter how stupid I think he is. I have to be objective when I judge him and what liberties should be restricted, lest I be judged myself. Don't mean to insult you, but I don't think you realize just how invasive your conclusions really are. Reading that paragraph about priorities, survival, and contempt for self interest is flagrantly arrogant when exercised as law. How can you seriously believe you're being anything other than blatantly oppressive and tyrannical in your presumption that we should all be forced to agree with YOUR ideas of where money should be spent? It's akin to the argument for forcing people not to eat certain things, or drink certain things based on the idea those things are bad for you. That argument presupposes that all of us should want to live as long as possible, rather than as fun as possible, and is basically forcing people to choose longevity. I think life is too precious to be forced to live under someone else's ideas of right and wrong, what should be done or what shouldn't. That's not to say I don't agree with your sentiment, it's to say that I don't agree it should be legislated. If I've inferred incorrectly, forgive me and correct me.

Well don't take this the wrong way, but I feel compelled to respond as long as you keep posting, or until I get worn out. I think we're definitely in 'agree to disagree' territory on this one though. Again though, you're not following the logic. Mystic Meg is relaying astrological information. This would be akin to reading lines out of the bible and then paraphrasing them for the newspaper. While it's not obvious, copying and relaying information from one person to another is not the same as making the claim that that information is accurate or even true. So, Mystic Meg providing "astrological information" is not the same as making the claim that "astrology is true and correct". I could just as easily recite astrology, palm reading, anything and everything - and I'm still not making a claim of ANY KIND. I'm telling you what "astrology" says - not what I say. Obviously, this is not made clear by the paper, nor by Mystic Meg. No surprise there. But then, I doubt either of them would ever dream they needed to. I certainly don't see it. Why is everyone in your world obligated to run around cancelling out what others say about them and their stuff? I really don't get this. Pepsi needs to hire a team of guys just to sniff about the world and see what people are saying about their soft drink and then pay for the advertisements to "say it's a crock"? Shit, I could take down corporations with that logic. Just start an organized rumor mill that costs companies millions of dollars to chase us around cancelling the crap we dream up about them. If I'm a decent person and businessman, then I would do this. But why is it legally up to me to educate them? And if I do tell them there's no evidence and they still want to buy it, then why shouldn't I be allowed to sell it to them? You're still forcing your belief system onto others. Because I have a right to hold property and trade. I don't have to give away my property, and I don't have to restrict ownership of my property. I should be able to freely negotiate ownership of my property. So you're all cool with it as long as palmistry presents itself as a "theory"? I don't agree. You can't prove they aren't talking and working with god. Just like you can't prove psychics don't talk to the dead. If you can't prove they're committing fraud, then you're blatantly trampling on their liberties. And you're morally wrong, in my opinion. It seems quite clear to me that this proposal is incredibly subjective. You've decided that no one can really talk to dead people, that no one can talk to god and etc..yet you can't prove any of that. You just personally believe this. So that makes it ok to interfere with trade within the citizenry based on what YOU believe, or don't believe - not a scrap of objective truth. Objective reasoning is the only fair governor of liberty. I choose to err on the side of liberty, you choose to err on the side of control. That's where we agree to disagree.

It's so much easier when you can delude yourself into believing "the establishment" is censoring you. Here, I'll help. Dawkins is a delusional idiot. He can't prove "memes" any more than he can prove god doesn't exist. Dawkins is a FRAUD!! There...now let's see if they "move" this.

Haha...I'm betting Stossel pissed on your cheerios at some point in the past. Pathetic little whiner? I've always enjoyed his pretentious inquisitive approach.

Excellent observation ecoli, I hadn't really considered what constitutes a "smoker" before. I'm with Pangloss on this, definitely is a good argument for separating our employers from our healthcare. And that does NOT imply an argument for national healthcare.

Well, reactance is the "resistance" of the RLC circuit, so while we have juicy equations to figure that, reactance is that final result. It's been a decade since I've accessed this information in my noggin, so maybe I'm wrong. I seem to remember determining total impedance by figuring the resistance of the DC components and adding that to the reactance of the AC circuit with a given frequency and so forth. I probably shouldn't have replied. It's bad to lead someone in the wrong direction.

This is true, I'm a taurus, and I have no idea why I'm sitting in this weird place. I guess I work here?

So if I quote something my mom said about reading palms and sell you the piece of paper it's on, that automatically means that I'm claiming to predict the future? No sir, it means I'm selling you information that was given to me. Do what you want with it, I never claimed ANYTHING more than this is what my mom said. You're paying for the RELAY service. Also, I read the horoscope everytime I read the newspaper. And I don't believe the periods that end the sentences. In fact, I don't know anyone who believes horoscopes. People do read it, for fun, it's that simple. So if someone says Pepsi cures cancer then pepsi is obligated to be sure their soda cures cancer? Rethink that Snail, that's way off the mark. You can't control what people claim about your product. You're not following the logic here. I have a good. Someone else wants that good. By interfering with profiteering, this requires one of two things: A) I have to provide this good at no profit (denying my right to property) B) That someone cannot negotiate for my good (denying them the right to trade) You also have the unintended consequence of potentially denying water to a thirsty person, with no interest in eliminating wrinkles or otherwise. It IS a sound basis. Some dude wants pond water, and I sell it to him. That simple. If he wants to drink it - great. If he wants to rub it all over himself and sing elvis tunes - great. If he thinks it will cure his pimples - great. Why is that MY problem? Gaps in scientific theory is an example of "unprovable" things being SOLD to people. Just like the horoscope. Just like palm reading. You're profiting from something you can't prove. By the way, how do you prove someone ISN'T talking to the dead? Similar to how you prove there is no god?

Sounds like you're secretly interested in my pond water yourself Dak. I'm running a special on it right now, you know. I'm not saying it will do anything, but other people that buy it say it eliminates wrinkles and makes their weiner big. Of course, I'm not making that claim. Yeah, they can get around the claims by using this sort of proxy testimony. But, then again, we're very accustomed to filtering advertisements with our inner sensibilities here in the states. All of your counterpoints are sensible as well, it's just not good enough reasons to plow through the principles of freedom of belief and use of property, in my mind. This also reminds me of the gun debate, in that you take away guns and people just start killing each other more with knives and sling shots. Business is always going to present their product in the best possible light, and use any and all means to sell practically anything you want to buy. Likewise, people are always looking for the "easy way out" and will always believe in stupid stuff. The two will always find each other.

I'll freely admit this is anecdotal, but the two times I was directly involved in a news story, (and not national) it was grossly, deliberately misrepresented. I have a very piss poor outlook on news media. They are a business and are never called out like one. I can only guess it's some psychological byproduct where the "accuser" naturally escapes accusation. I like that idea. Alot.

If I advertise my pond water reduces lines and wrinkles then that's fraud. If I advertise I'm selling pond water - and you have been told by others that my pond water reduces lines and wrinkles, then I'm not committing fraud. I don't know, nor care why you're buying my pond water. I never said it did a damn thing, and I'm under no obligation to interogate you and test your belief and filter myself accordingly. So are you going to rob me of my pond water? Or deny others the right to negotiate for it? If they have the right to believe, and I have a right to my property, then one of us is being denied a fundamental right. Persuade people to stop believing in unsubstantiated things. Does this mean Bibles can't be sold anymore? No more science books that posit tachyons? Really stop and think of all the things you believe in, and how much of that is not empirical. Sure there's no profiting going on? That's why we have the first amendment in my country. It certainly has its silliness, but it ensures that no one's beliefs can be impeded by others who think they know better. This includes belief that snake oil cures pimples and the belief that you don't have any right to simply HAVE my snake oil.

Glad we agree.

My wife didn't appreciate it that I called her freaking pig last night since she gave me two boys. Thanks Pangloss.

But I don't see them making claims. Does a horoscope actually make the CLAIM that they are telling your future? I never see that. They just provide a horoscope for those that believe it tells the future. Subtle, but quite distinct. To me, it has to do with who is making the claim. Most of these services aren't making claims, that I've seen anyway, they are just providing the service for those who happen to believe in it. Hey, if you think dirty water from my pond makes wrinkles go away, I'll sell you all you want. But you'll never catch me making that claim. So we get right back to allowing others to believe what they want. As long as this doesn't hurt the person or property of another, I see no reason why we should intrude on someone else's belief system, no matter how silly I think it is.

Read up on Reactance (X). That's what we call impedance in AC devices. To distinquish between Resistance in DC circuits. Impedance is the sum of Reactance and Resistance.

Yeah, cuz before belief in deities humans were so cool to one another. Unsubstantiated belief has proven benevolently useful - religion is the culprit for the malice. Religion doesn't require beliefs in fairty tales, it can be based on evidental truths. Deity is just a tool. Religion negotiates the suspension of individual thought - adhering to a set of beliefs and practices generally drawn up by others. And I don't think I have to tell you about group psychology, particularly within such a dogmatic vacuum. That's how you get the atrocities we read about in our history books. Hey, I like it. That works. Not bad either. I guess I could say "scientist", and then when they look at me funny I'll follow it up with "you know...a theistic fence sitter".

The problem is in the definitions of the words - requiring modifiers to express a position. Personally, I appreciate the distinction but can we come up with a new word so I don't have to say I'm a weak agnostic weak atheist? Makes me sound so...weak.