ParanoiA

Oh Hell Yeah! Are you kidding? As long as it's as advertised: "so lifelike, so imbued with human-seeming intelligence and emotions, as to be nearly indistinguishable from real people" I was hoping these would come out before I die...

Precisely. I was just pointing out that Ron Paul's disbelief in the theory of evolution only seems like a valid negative when you don't consider the same unsubstantiated belief systems prevelant in candidates of either party. If someone is going to make the case that Ron Paul's marbles are in question due to an unsubstantiated belief then that case should be good for all unsubstantiated beliefs by all candidates, regardless of their party affiliation. However, I don't know that these silly belief anomolies are more important, nor impacting on anything government should be involved in. The insinuation is that by denying scientific evidence to the theory, that establishes a precedence of ignoring facts in favor of religious conviction. I tend to agree with that as I have a big problem with the leader of my country allowing his moral obligation to his countrymen to be trumped by his moral obligation to god. However, Ron Paul, clearly does not think that way. He clearly believes in god, but always refers to him as "our creator" - purposely avoiding religious endorsement of any flavor. That sounds like a moral obligation to the countrymen trumping any obligation to god. Only the Sith speak in absolutes, Sisyphus. Pangloss pointed out the Sith Fallacy in another thread. Seriously though, it's a valid point and ultimately I agree. It's a negative on my list of Paul stuff. The saving grace, for me, is the lack of pushing these views. Oddly enough, this is one area I think government has an obligation to invest in. A case for national security, alone, can be made I think.

Exactly. You're libertarian skills are sharpening up here. See, the people you elect for office don't really have to believe the same things you do - you can disagree on all kinds of stuff as long as you agree that none of you have a right to force your beliefs on each other. The constitution is quite a secular document and doesn't require an atheist to interpret it. His denial of evolution is about as relevant as belief in ghosts. How much do you want to bet of the "evolution believers" in the democrat candidacy that there are some who believe in psychics? Ghosts? Wicca? Interesting how no one asked any of them that question in the debates...

Absolutely not. His agenda is theologically neutral and poses no attack on science. He's a religious dude. And, a perfect example of limiting personal beliefs to the person, not to extend his christianity in legislation. It's about time. The rest of the presidential crop fail to convince me they'll keep their theological components out of government. It's annoying to accept his denial, but I hardly think it compares to war in Iraq, the destruction of the dollar, the security of our borders, our high maintenance empirical infrastructure...etc. I can't imagine how impacting his position on evolution is supposed to be...is there some big multi-billion dollar science bill being drafted right now that hinges on the belief in evolution?

Torture seems to be grossly inefficient, but successful. So, obviously, I agree with you here. (Haven't we developed a James Bond truth serum yet?) It's the morality angle that I call BS on. I would torture the hell out of somebody if I thought they had information about my son, were he to be kidnapped, and I don't know many parents who wouldn't. The line is obvious. Now we're just haggling about where to draw it. I don't think it's unreasonable to fathom a scenario where torturing someone becomes an efficient and morally justifiable option. Just like mass murder on a battle field. It has it's place. To summarily throw it out of the playbook is illogical - as Spock would say. Right. You've repeated twice now that you are concerned about me "attacking you" for your views. This suggests to me that you are taking things personal. That you take disagreement as an affront, when it's actually meant to be more analytical. I would never attack you, you're a cool guy. Yes, you're right, I do define success that way - but not efficient success. Since it was successful ONCE, then apparently there WAS a scenario where using it was effective. So, why not, at the very least, leave it open for that duplicate scenario to repeat itself in the future? Instead of paying so much attention to absolutes like this, why not concentrate on these other methods which work so much better? The better we get at alternatives, the more morally unacceptable torture becomes altogether.

Attacking you? Now you're going to start the spin technique? I would say if torture gained a pile of false positives that wasted time and resources and one true positive that stopped a suicide bomber then that's a success. Or do you put a price on lives? Notice I didn't say it was a good idea, a moral idea, an efficient method, nor any of that - I said that it's a success. Shouldn't have to point that out to a board of scientists...but then, shouldn't have to have your arguments spun either.

Let me get this straight...is someone really under the delusion that torture doesn't work? And just for fun, tell me how a million false positives and one true positive isn't success.

Does this mean congress can pass a resolution of war against a particular state(s)? I think so. I would think that congressional legislation carries with it implied force. What good is passing legislation if it can just be ignored by the states? I would think that, at some point, force is a given. Obviously, no. Without the particulars on the table, I would have to assume this was tried, and it failed. I don't really know to what extent, though. I know that the framers fought with idea of freedom and liberty while slavery remained the elephant in the room.

Yes it does exist. We've been through this before, Phil. You can't levy income tax until you overwrite the apportionment provision. Just read our previous discussion, maybe it will refresh your memory. The Lincoln criticism caught me completely off-guard, though. You don't usually hear candidates running for office criticize the likes of Lincoln on something so crucial as the civil war. He disagreed with fighting over ending slavery - citing that most of world got rid of slavery by peaceful means, such as purchasing the slaves and then setting them free. Interesting. And I've been wrestling with this one a little too, because compliance by the states to federal law is not voluntary. So I'm not sure why anything short of force would be appropriate. If Montana's state government just started arbitrarily murdering it's citizens are we supposed to purchase them and set them free in one of the other 49 states? I think we would go in...forcefully.

And if you noticed, he doesn't have his ideals and philosphy on his agenda, as a whole. This is a point I think many people miss, and I blame Paul himself for it. He goes on and on about his ideas of government and the role it should play, and I absolutely love that. But he doesn't go on and on about what parts he'll actually work on pushing through. Rather it takes a good interviewer to pull this out of him. It shouldn't. He should make this more clear. He doesn't plan on taking office and then fire 70% of the government, shutting down hundreds of federal buildings, disposing of tens of departments and closing every american military base in the world the first week of office. When interviewers push him on his views and how they're to be implemented, he always explains that we have to transition to this philosophy - not abrupt change. So, in short, I agree with you. But I'll accept his shortcomings because there's too much meat and potatoes with this guy. Even on christmas, he didn't want to talk about his christmas commercial in Iowa - he didn't want to talk about the "warm and fuzzy" christmas advertisements all of the candidates were putting out - he wanted to talk about monetary policy and foreign affairs. To me, he's the exact opposite of the same ole group of propagandists who's messages take a back seat to their persona. Paul is all about the nuts and bolts.

Did anyone catch this Sunday? I found it in on Youtube. Sorry, I would include the links, but I'm at work and Youtube.com is blocked (as if there's no legitimate business purpose for access...please ) Anyway, I thought Paul did a good job defending himself. I'm still concerned about his ear marks thing though - I'm going to read more about that. Also, in another CNN interview it is brought to his attention that some KKK member donated 500 dollars to his campaign. Paul said he has no intention of returning it. I liked his reasoning on that too. 1) He donated to Paul's message - not the KKK. 2) Why should he give the money back to a white supremicist to further his racial cause, rather than keep the money for Paul's cause? Interesting though, whatever your perspective.

Most of the people in this forum get my respect because I think I'm getting their true opinions with honest motivations. I can't really say that about most talking heads on TV. Sorry if that's not specific enough, but I can't think of anyone I disagree with here but don't respect. All of you seem to give a shit. Maybe I'm easy, but that gets my respect.

The repository is going to be somewhat dynamic - kind of like the difference between liberal views and conservative views. I would think some christian values would include being pro-life, keeping sex ed out of public school, creationism, maybe opposing gay marriage - I'm not a christian so I don't keep up with their code. However, how is it relevent in this particular discussion? The use of the phrase is to reference the sum of their values - not that each value has been assigned one label - "Christian" - and so non-christians can't use it...or need to be offended by it... These values can have many labels actually. Being pro-life can be a conservative value, a christian value, an atheist value - whatever categorical label claims it as one of it's values that makes up it's morality set. Pro-choice would be a liberal value, a paranoia value, an iNow value - nobody owns it, it's just a description. If that was the basis for Moo's objections, then that's an argument from ignorance don't you think?

I think you make some valid points. However, the crux of it seems to be bias. You assign moral value to one person based off of the group they're in and then give a pass to another person based on the group they're in, just because you think the potential of being compelled suddenly changes everything. You've made this point before concerning Roosevelt and the war too. That he didn't have a choice. Of course he had a choice. People always have a choice. The morality of that particular choice was quite clear - it was justified, in my opinion. Most would agree, too, that our involvment in WWII was justified. And it was still a choice. Just because someone can be compelled, by force, to fight in the military does not absolve them from the moral attributes of that military - they are killing other people. They are obeying orders and doing their bidding. Now, do I blame that person for making that choice and endorsing a different morality code? Of course not. They were compelled. But they're still exercising that morality code - their actions have spoken. They would rather live and kill other people, rather than refuse to sacrifice their original morality code and choose their own death instead.

It's gone off topic, but was there much left to say? Besides, what's wrong with this current discussion? Groups / individuals / morality codes - sounds juicy to me.... No he wasn't. His point was that he didn't agree with her morals. His reply was EXACTLY in line with her initial: Exactly! You need to read my posts more carefully, because I just made that point. If you're going to join a group, then don't get upset when you're judged by the attributes of that group. Common sense. Good or bad. Your ethics are derived by your actions. No semantics. Just common sense.

This is true, however by avoiding the "one size fits all" approach, perhaps we can avoid some of that higher price. It's always going to get passed on to the consumer as they have to make a profit, but it seems that blanket "bar" style regulation - basically a guilty until proven innocent concept - is too lucrative for the government to be honest. I mean, here we are, with lead paint in toys, still, despite the regulation style. It's almost like the government is just in it for the money or something...

Yes it does. They've chosen to join a group that fights "with prejudice". That's as broad as the point gets - that was the ORIGINAL point that Severian made that you keep adding baggage to. No one said the prejudice wasn't justified. He chooses not to follow the moral code found in joining a group that beats the crap out of people who don't agree with them. Now, he may be wrong for making that choice, since there could be a really good list of reasons for beating the crap out of people who don't agree - like, "they want to occupy my country and we don't want them to" - that sort of thing. So, take issue with him there. Tell him that conclusion is too broad to be accurate. But to deny the obvious moral code you're endorsing when you join the military is nonsense.

Yes, I've considered that people might choose to abandon their morality set by sadistic force. It's still a choice, and it's still a reflection of your morality. If I have a gun to my head and I'm being told to kill somebody or I'll be killed, then I'll kill somebody. And that says something about my morality and principles doesn't it? It doesn't mean it's not understandable or carries no sympathy - it's just a statement of fact. I chose to kill someone else rather than myself be killed.

It's not an ad hom. It's an opinion. Every military's implied mission is to force compliance with...force. That means beating the crap out of people who don't agree with you. Obviously if you're fighting a war, they don't agree with you - yet here you are beating the crap out of them because of it. Sounds accurate to me. If I join the KKK, then you're probably going to assume my values mirror theirs huh? Is that a presumption? Of course it is, but a logical and reasonable presumption nonetheless. Mooeypoo, you brought this on yourself here:

Yes, the public has been aware they don't want lead in kid's toys. They were NOT aware that there WAS lead - still - in kid's toys. That's part of what was covered in this story. When this part graduates from Leher to mainstream knowledge, then we'll get the capitalist pacification which can ultimately go further. The government can only test and discover X number of toys. But if Toys-R-Us is getting PR points for bragging about being "Lead Free" - then they really can't jeopardize their reputation and they will make damn sure every item is lead free. Now, about government oversight. What is in the constitution that makes it ok to sell poison in disguise of children's toys? I'm just saying. Again, it seems like we already have the laws in place - now we just need to investigate and prosecute. This may be exactly how they operate, I really don't know. My aversion to regulation has always been in application, not theory. It's illegal for me to kill people, but I don't have to get "licensed" to walk the streets. Instead, I walk the streets freely and I'm investigated if I'm under suspicion of commiting murder. When we regulate, it always seems to involve some sort of licensing, and ridiculous set of standards that every business has to meet - this always involves large amounts of money (the cost of which is passed to the consumer) and creates monopolistic bubbles that dissuade competition. Depending on the particular market of course, it can be too difficult to initialize your business - so competition becomes scarce (which also costs the consumer) and in some cases, like energy, becomes nil - which is a self fulfilling prophecy of even MORE regulation since now they really are a monopoly - a government enabled one. ( And yes, even MORE cost to the consumer). This thing just snowballs because we're not giving business the same benefit of the doubt has private citizens. Why shouldn't each business simply operate as they see fit, while we investigate and police them the same way private citizens are policed? If they break the law - punish them. Punish them with money, jail time, whatever. Sorry, I got way off track there didn't I?

Which is why I changed my position on it. Although, I haven't changed my position on this: But consumers weren't aware. Because public TV reports it means the public is now aware? Not saying safety oversight isn't necessary, but I don't agree with the notion that consumer awareness is ultimately irrelevent. When consumers became aware of the Atkins diet, suddenly carb counts appeared on menus all over the country. When consumers really do become aware or start to make a stink about something, business takes notice and creates an opportunity out of it. They'll sell you whatever you want.

Perhaps I'm depending on my personal experience too much on this one, because neither of my boys actually bit into a plastic toy that I ever witnessed. Sure they nibbled at them and drooled all over them, but I never actually saw them get any meat out of them. I guess I have to agree though, the profit gained from using the cheap lead stuff isn't worth the risk. And I can appreciate the historical lessons of miscalculation. During the program, they mentioned the Toys-R-Us (I believe) CEO ordered these particular toys off the shelves. Whether in honor or business, it certainly goes to show all you really need to do is get the public to make a big deal out of it and the market will respond. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing "100% Lead Free!!" stickers on every freaking toy imaginable...yes, even those. (you dirty devils)

I caught a little of that myself, actually. The question I kept screaming at the television is why does it matter if there's lead in some toy if the lead can't be extracted from the toy? Some of this lead paint is being used in manufacturing plastics - so how does the lead get absorbed by a child in that case? Lead based "house paint" only got absorbed because the paint chipped and flaked and the pieces are then eaten and I'm assuming the body then breaks it down, thereby releasing the lead. I didn't think any of these toys' lead content was able to be extracted - short of swallowing the entire toy. I mean, the toy is made of plastic - everyone is aware that eating plastic is bad right?? So does the lead in that plastic make it any worse? I admit ignorance on this subject. I also admit suspicion of overreaction.

This is the event that Dr Paul references when explaining the "blow back" principle that the CIA has understood for years - actually any breathing, thinking human can make that deduction...except for Rudy Guiliani. This is the type of interventionist activity that has earned us hatred by the middle east. Many of us believe it's this kind of activity that encourages terrorism against the west - not simply because we're rich and free.

Good question. I mean, we know he can mobilize troops to our defense, but since we're defending our home soil, I'm not sure he needs to worry about the length of time troops are engaged before a declaration of war empowers him. Interesting... By the way, the reason behind my OP was to explore the possibility of the american people, pressuring congress, to come to the defense of another nation. This came up in repeated conversations concerning Ron Paul and his non-interventionist platform. Many people see the sense in it, but take exception to Israel. They think we owe Israel defense - forever. My instinct was to rebutt with advocating citizens pressuring congress to declare war and fight it without the president. So anyway, there goes that idea...