ParanoiA

No, it would be better to farm them and use their stem cells to advance medicine and quality of life for the humans we allowed to live. Assuming that is, if it's even necessary.

I know I did. I made money off of you people...my apologies. Simplifying the tax code might make clever accountants out of everybody - even stupid people. So, what's the conclusion on imports and exports? How does the Fair Tax potentially effect our international trade economy?

It is an inappropriate question because there is nothing for him to legislate concerning evolution. In terms of his duties to function he might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Government has no concern over such trivial matters, as is consistent with his belief in stripped down, libertarian government. I don't believe he has ever said the earth was flat, or that he didn't believe in predicting asteroids and comets. I'm sure he'll agree with that scientific prophecy. What I worry about is will he fund a project to intercept an earth-bound, doomsday asteroid?

oh my god that's hilarious i had no idea the religion of Israel was Israeli...

I've been reading Founding Brothers and I read this bit by Ellis talking about the end of the Federalist Party...yet when I review the status quo it sure doesn't seem like it. The label got devoured but the mentallity apparently has lived on and merged into the psyche of what I thought was essentially the anti-Federalists. (Of course, I'm basing that on the supposed conservative theme of smaller federal government) Ron Paul, to me, is a kind of mile marker of how far we've drifted. Depending on your perspective, that's good or bad, but it's refreshing to have someone represent that view and get this kind of exposure, regardless. And, this is the first candidate I've ever given money to. Felt kinda dirty, but wtf...

Well you have to admit, it's actually a quite long and complicated story. That's why I find it hard to have an opinion on the matter. I know that my gut says that establishing a state of a small few inside a region of a big many who all want to kill those few doesn't sound like a smart idea. (Actually, I thought surrounding your enemy was a tactical advantage, and here we dropped them right in the middle..surrounded) Of course, it didn't work like that. But at what point do you stop trying to put a square block through a round hole? Yeah, it would be better for them to live together in peace, but maybe they need to live apart in peace first. Israeli insistance on claiming their holy land, outnumbered albeit not outgunned, seems fundamentally flawed, at least on the surface. Would we see this type of group choice/behavior without the religious element? It certainly doesn't seem like a decision Homo Erectus would make.

Ecoli, you definitely have a feel for this stuff. Paul in 3rd...wow (I know it's just a poll, but hey) I'm like a little kid. I get my hopes up easily, and they get squashed easily, then back up again...

Kids are great for refreshing you on the basics of humanity.

I'm disappointed in the results. I was hoping Paul would do better. I'm no good at political predictions and the whole "game" but it seems to me if he doesn't do well in New Hampshire then he just isn't going to do well at all. I never really thought he had a chance, but I sure was getting excited when he raised so much money and started putting together commercials. I know it's not over, but I have a feeling I'm going to be writing in my vote in november. By the way, does the party have to go with the candidate who wins the primary? Or, can they actually ignore the vote?

Hey, 8 to 5 now, my man Paul is making a come back!

After giving this some more thought, I think I'm wrong on this one actually. My concern is allowing government to endorse something labelled a "theory", thereby opening the door to anything that one can label a theory. But, as Cap'n, Yourdad and others have pointed out, many things we consider factual are still technically "theory". So, that's a bad partition on my part. Not to mention the ultimate elegance and sensibility of this statement: Government shouldn't be "objective" on science matters by the way you seem to be defining the term. Government, and the rest of us, should honestly approach expert opinion and empirical evidence. If such an honest appraisal leads to a conclusion, like evolution or global warming, government should accept that conclusion. Well said, CDarwin.

DrDNA - as I was going through that post I noticed that a continuous general theme was present in each point of yours. Therefore this reply is somewhat succinct. Your logic seems to hinge on the fact there are consequences for your actions and one should live up to them. Your fallacy is, you are cherry picking consequence. We are content killing the unborn human child and intend to face the consequences of the act of killing it. We may also be content letting it grow and then living with the consequence of a human being - yippee! You act like we're NOT accepting the consequences of intercourse, yet we are. Unless you are going to get hypocritical here and suggest that using condoms and birth control IS accepting consequences of intercourse...surely not. And when did government funding enter the picture? I would never support government funding of killing unborn kids. I would, however, fully support personal funding of killing unborn kids - and farming them wholesale to rob them of their stem cells. You're seeing pregnancy as the consequence and abortion as getting out of it. But you have no right to term that as a consequence. From where we sit, you appear to be on crack. You are throwing rhetoric about like an angry child slinging shit all over the room. Your arguments start by misrepresentation, which leads to the strawmen. I've never seen you do that before. Baffling really.

Damn iNow. Maybe you should take over for me, you're doing a much better job of it! Of course, Lockheed is correct to suspect me. My question was loaded. I don't believe so many people would be against abortion if they didn't make the value judgement about conception. For some reason, simply because I caused the pregnancy, I'm supposed to endure the dangers and inconvenience associated with it. I reject that logic. There are plenty of dangerous medical conditions caused by one's self; that spawn other kinds of life and growth in their body and nobody makes them live with it or endure the dangers and inconvenience. Of course, that argument only works if, in my 'thought experiment', you agree that she should be allowed to have an abortion. If you don't, then my argument fails.

Let me ask this question: What if a woman were to get pregnant by an act of seeming divinity? No intercourse was performed in any way, yet here she is with a baby growing in her. Purely hypothetical and impossible, obviously. Do you still believe she should be forced to carry it? Can she get an abortion?

You are incredibly emotionally invested in this argument. You take offense to terms like "parasite" and "tumor" and then claim not be emotionally convicted? I don't know why you hate these discussions, it's just good debate. Everyone is learning something here. Why so glum? Relax. There's no fun in agreeing and I'm no stranger to taking sides on things just to be contrary. But the fact that the risk is minimal is irrelevant to every dynamic of our correspondence. If you want to assess risk and make some kind of point out of it then do so, but if you do it in the form of a reply to some OTHER statement, then it's not going to make any sense. How is your point about risk assessment valid IN ANY WAY in response to a point about your rights to force me to do something? It doesn't matter if the risk is minimal - hell, it doesn't matter if it's gauranteed to be beneficial for me - you don't get to make that call, in my humbled opinion of course.

I'm not labeling it as a statement of fact. I AM comparing it to other things that grow in you and get sustanence from you. After all, that's the basis for my argument. That you don't have the right to force me to let something grow in me. Other things that grow in you include parasites and tumors. (Fortunately you don't find those morally valuable, or presumably you'd advocate forcing us to let those grow in us too...) Please go back and re-read the context. You were replying to my statement about you not having the right to force someone else to endure the risks of pregnancy. You then replied about how the risks are minimal. THAT's why I replied, it doesn't matter how MINIMAL you think the risks are - you don't get to force me to do stuff that YOU don't think is very dangerous - hence, my Skydiving analogy.

Probably for the same reason "...don't need to worry about protection, they can just get an abortion..." always seems to somehow make its way into abortion debates. Forget the dollar condom, we'll just spend a grand on an abortion? Nobody thinks like that. It's a cheap charge with no supporting evidence or even sense. Well, seeing as how you misunderstood those arguments I don't see how you have the credit to think that. Actually, I think you understood my points just fine, and you can't counter them on substance. So, you do what the mainstream propaganda machine does (like with Dr. Paul): you misrepresent those arguments. Your bullets above make that point nicely. You know what I'm saying here. You're placing a value judgement on the act of conception and using that to justify forced reproduction. I don't think you have critically thought through the consequences of pregnancy. You seem to deny the dynamics involved in pregnancy AND give NO consideration to the mother at all. As if her rights were stripped the moment she conceived. Why does the growing human (who's lifespan at this point is a mere fraction of the mother's) suddenly get more rights than the mother?

No, you're not understanding my point which is why you interpret it as equivocation. Your link here proves this. I watched this a couple of months ago when it first ran - and I loved it. And it has nothing to do with government legislating morality based on "Theory" (whether or not you agree it's a real "theory" is irrelevant) This is the not the United Scientists of America. So your theory=fact thingy ain't gonna' cut it. Here's the definition of Theory the rest of the world uses: 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. 2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. 3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory. 4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory. 5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles. 6. contemplation or speculation. 7. guess or conjecture. It's not that I don't appreciate your interpretation, but to point to Wiki and act like the rest of the world is supposed to adopt THAT as the true definition and ignore every dictionary that says otherwise is proposterous. Any expert in any field is going to have their lingo and terminology fleshed out far beyond the scope of general laymen, but that doesn't mean you get to re-define the words. The ironic part, is that my point actually serves your interest. At least your aversion to religion, which I share. That's why I don't want an opening for government to use as an excuse to legislate it. I actually agree with you about funding. I don't see a problem with the government funding research and development based on theories and such. My line in the sand has to do with legally endorsing a theory, which could lead to changes in legislating morality, or worse. I actually believe the government has a role in scientific R&D, for many of the reasons you mentioned. Creationist arguments? Oh that's right, I'm supposed to treat creationists like whackos and not even validate their presence - because we all know that's a GREAT way to get people to change their views....sorry, I'll run over a couple of church junkies on my home to make up for it. Actually, I was throwing a possibility out there that I thought was interesting since I've seen him do this in the past and I've been defending my premise ever since. I'm sure Dr. Paul really doesn't believe in evolution. I'm also sure that he's earned enough respect from me that I owe him a chance to explain himself - just on the off chance he might be doing a libertarian clinic. But I seriously doubt it. I've already expressed my disagreement with him and fundamentally we're worlds apart on religion - I don't see it like he does, period. Am I supposed to fry him and call him a quack and disappoint myself every four years because there's no candidate that's perfect? I have to thoughtfully weigh out what impact this really has. My differences with ALL of the other candidates are too numerous to compare to the growing list of differences I have with Paul. War, oil, money - all matter more to me than Paul's thoughts on evolution. Sorry, but I don't think an evolution controversy really carries the same import - not even close.

I'm simply applying the opposite value judgement. One person's "precious" is another person's "parasite". It's hard to see the objectivity when you invest so much attachment to it. I love my kids, and really kids in general, but I don't presume to force you to let one grow in you any more than I'd force you to allow a tumor to develop. Doesn't matter. You have no right to judge that risk for others. Can I assess the risk associated with skydiving and force you to do it - citing that only a handful of people actually die every year and it might feel really cool experiencing pee running up your neck?

What? No consensus on GW? I thought there WAS consensus. I thought you were a quack if you didn't believe in GW - just like evolution. So why do they get a pass if they don't go Al Gore with GW? It's theory backed by mounds of evidence - just like evolution. See what I mean? What is the difference between the THEORY of evolution and the THEORY of GW or the THEORY of the big bang? What is the objective difference - the distinguishing characteristic that would allow government to legislate based off of one theory and not another? Otherwise EVERY theory is valid for the government to believe and legislate conclusions about. It does in politics, which is what my point is about. You don't want Politicians acting like scientists and declaring your theories as valid or not in the form of legislation. You're doing exactly what I said would be done. You, a scientist, will not accept a "creationism theory" - but GWB might. Mitt Romney might. Mike Huckabee might. Are you really sure you want government mixed up in validing scientific ideas? I'm sure that I don't. That's why I like the position of objectivity hinged on the fact it's a "theory". As long as it's not a "fact", then it shouldn't be subject to legislation - for good or bad.

It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. Thank you for making my point, Wiki. In the capacity of government and legislation, theory and fact are quite in opposition. Precisely the point. When the country is run by scientists, THEN we change the emphasis. You mean to tell me that there aren't an army of creationists that want it to be considered a "theory"? Remember, we're talking about government here, not science. I think you all are fighting me on the evolution theory instead of thinking through the implications of validating a theory by government, which is the only point I'm making. If you allow a "theory" to shape legislation, then how far are we from outlawing abortion, banning homosexuality and etc due to some crazy "creationism theory"?

No, you're missing my point. If you make it legislatively "OK" for the government to act on a "theory" then how many other "theories" are you thereby allowing the government to act on? The "theory" of god? The "theory" of creationism? In other words, of course we all agree that evolution is a sound theory. But that doesn't mean we should allow government to throw out objectivity just because our group is so convinced. The scientific method doesn't even state it as fact for a reason. Science regards it as a theory - it has to by its very method. So, back to my point, how do we know this isn't a libertarian demonstration about objectivity in government? There have been other examples that 'ecoli' has provided where he took a position to prove some fundamental point. Somehow I doubt it, but I thought it was interesting enough to consider. I certainly see no reason why government should have anything to say on the matter, so effectively should not endorse evolution as anything more than a theory. Objectivity IS something to expect on a science forum.

So, is Evolution Fact or Theory? This argument about "denying facts" seems a little disingenuous seeing as how evolution is a theory, not a fact. Yes, he may very well be denying heaps and mounds of evidence to support that theory, OR, he may be trying to force the point that until ANY scientific theory is contemporary fact that it MUST only be treated as such. Such as the earth being round: Has that graduated from theory to fact yet? How do we know this isn't another Jeffersonian demonstration of true objective decision making? Perhaps Ron Paul is the only one being honest about the fact it's a theory. Remember, it's the OTHER republican candidates that are pimping god while dismissing evolution - Paul just dismisses evolution. Just a thought...I throw that out there because repeatedly he has demonstrated a capacity for deeper thought that doesn't get tapped until you look beneath the surface. A 2 minute video doesn't capture his thought process that has led to his statement of disbelief in evolution. I don't expect a good answer from him on this - but you never know, he may be making more of a political statement than a personal one.

Is it also murder if someone needs a kidney to survive and no one offers one up? I ask that question because to force a mother to continue allowing a parasite to grow within her, against her will, is really no different to me. What is moral about forcing someone to allow a life endangering organism to develop in them against their choosing? Consider the pain of child birth and the irreversible physical condition introduced by reproduction - and possible death - you don't have a problem with this kind of authority? This seems as sick as slavery, to me.

I don't think it would be immoral to do so. Particularly, if it turns out to be something that's irreversible - that is, if science doesn't find a "cure" for pedophilia. I figure pedophilic lust is an innate urge, such as my attraction to my wife, and not an "evil" or learned obsession. Perhaps an even creepier spin on the question is, is it not cruel to deny a pedophile access to such devices? Lucky you and lucky me that we have sexual preferences that aren't considered harmful by society and we get to enjoy ourselves freely, without persecution - easy for us to deny the same basic human desire for sexual liberation merely for what it represents, doing no actual harm to no person. Surely there's a science fiction story on this one... Well, technically it's only a problem if an actual child is involved. What if we allowed Pedophilia to flourish in the medium of robots and fictionally generated imagery? What if this virtually eliminated actual child victims of pedophilia?