waitforufo

My religion is Catholic. If I recall correctly Catholic cannon says the death penalty is permissible under the very narrowly defined circumstances. Also if I recall correctly, they say its virtually impossible to have all of those circumstances so it should be forbidden in law. So maybe Hitler. Personally I’m against the death penalty. Our nation was founded on respecting each individual’s right to life, liberty, and property. Life is a requirement for the other two. I like the idea of living in a society that always gives deference to life. On the flip side however, I think it is cruel and unusual punishment to lock someone in prison for life without the possibility of parole. The death penalty destroys someone’s life. But life without parole destroys their liberty and property rights. I really see it as torture. So if you can’t let them out, why keep them alive? I really struggle with this. In the end however I always end up on the side of life. Well, because they might be innocent.

Show me a post were I said abortion should be illegal? I did say I felt that most abortions performed today are immoral. I don’t think it’s a good idea to legislate morality in many cases. Society however should however have a cultural sense of morality.

I do understand your position and feel it is well considered. I have no idea when fertilized pack of cells becomes a person. Since I don’t know when the cells become a person, and since I believe terminating an innocent person to be a very bad thing, I think abortion should be strongly avoided. I do know however that the cells will very likely become a person. I think their eventual personhood by itself makes them special and they should be given special moral consideration. I’m glad my cells were given that consideration and were protected. Abortion is a complex moral issue. I would personally like to live in a society that always gives deference to human life, from its beginnings to its natural end. Abortion also however involves competing rights. In particular the rights of women. As I stated in my last post, I do think there are times when the rights of a pregnant woman trump those of the life within her. I can’t imagine many women who win that contest who still don’t think their abortions are tragic. I do however feel that most abortions that are currently performed are immoral. As bad as murder very early in the pregnancy? Likely not. But show me a person that is always moral.

mooeypoo , I am both a human life and a person. Two things at one time. My personhood is dependent on my human life. There may have been a time when I was just a human life but not a person. That may happen at another time during my human life. If it does, I hope during that time people treat my human life with respect. If you chop off my finger you have a finger and a disfigured human life that is also a person. If you clone a cell from my finger you create a new human life. In its early development, I don’t know if this new human life is a person, but I believe it should be shown respect and treated as something special. Why? Because it has the capacity to become a person. The person or persons that performed the cloning, in my opinion, have an obligation to this new human life. My detached finger has only one real value. That is the value to me if it can be reattached. If you care for this finger during detachment, you are treating me with respect, not the finger. If reattachment is not possible, the finger is nothing but trash. Perhaps if you look at things at the other end of life. Remember Terri Schiavo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case) ? The day they removed her feeding tube for the last time, she was still a human life. She was however no longer a person. Almost no one believed she would become a person again. Keeping the human life part of Terri Schiavo alive was, in my opinion, disrespectful to the person who once was Terri Schiavo. It was also cruel to those who loved her most. Particularly those that that believed she still held or might regain her status as a person. Allowing her human life to end was a good thing. If a woman is impregnated during a rape, the human life within her came about without an act of will on her part. If the woman chose to bring that human life to full gestation and birth, that would certainly be a heroic gesture. I don’t think people can be required to be heroic. Even if it could be proven that the human life within the woman was a person, I think one could sill argue that terminating that life is justifiable. It is still however tragic. You keep making this argument about killing bacteria by washing with soap. Who cares about bacteria? I kill fully developed animals and eat them. I do it on purpose. I see no moral dilemma with doing this because I need to eat, and I find it to be enjoyable recreation. Now a Hindu would have a moral objection to hunting. But a Hindu thinks that dear is a person.

No, because one of those chunks is not a person and never will be.

If you watch the program COPS when the police ask a suspect.. Why do you have a gun? Why do you have these drugs. If you are not selling these drugs, why do you have all of this money? And what do they always answer? I found it. If you pick up the suitcase, I hope you come up with a better story.

Perhaps a personal example of Human Being. I am a human. My state of being began at my conception and will end when my body stops exhibiting what doctors call vital signs. I assume those vital signs will cease soon after my heart stops beating, but with continued medical progress who knows. During this time of being it has not and may not always appear that anyone is home. I want to thank those that have looked after me during such times. I would particularly like to thank my mother. I would also like to thank those in the future who look after me during such times. I would appreciate it if you did not write on my face with permanent markers during my absence. There may come a time when it is obvious that I’m gone for good. If that occurs, please feel free to use any of my organs, tissues, and fluids to the benefit of others human beings. Whatever is left over please dispose of in a respectful and sanitary way. If you do this for me, I promise to treat you in the same way

The above may be true, but I’m not talking about preventing a human life. Within a pregnant woman at least one human life exists, perhaps more in the case of twins, triplets and so no. I see a significant difference in preventing something, and destroying something. The reason I set my first goal post as “not all human life represents a person” was to encourage debate on two issues. 1) At what point does one or more human lives exist within a pregnant woman? 2) At what point does that human life become a person? I think these are critical questions in this debate. To my goal post three “The human life terminated in an abortion would likely continue to live and properly develop without an act of will by other persons” you respond… I see a significant moral difference in intervening to improve the outcome of development within the womb to terminating development within the womb. So for example encouraging a pregnant woman to take prenatal vitamins would be a good thing where encouraging a woman to take Thalidomide would be a bad thing. First, I have never use the term “Potential life.” I think this term is nonsensical. Life either exists or it does not. I have questioned when a human life represents a person so by inference I have been discussing “Potential Persons.” So when do I think the pack of cells becomes “human life?” I think that happens at conception. I appreciate that there are a lot of things that might happen by chance along the way that might impede the development of this human life in becoming a person, but I think there is a moral difference between willful acts and chance. By the way I do think there is a significant moral difference between terminating a human life and terminating a person. I think there are many instances where terminating a human life would be justified. In fact at times it may be a good thing. I think there are very few instances where terminating a person is justified. I don’t think I would ever call it a good thing. I still don’t understand this issue with twins. How does this represent a problem? When a lump of cells representing a human life becomes two lumps of cells now we have two human lives where only one previously existed. Each new life deserves the same respect as the previous one.

I agree about the moving goal posts. Here are my suggestions. 1) Not all human life represents a person. This is often argued at both the beginning and the end of life. 2) Abortion deals with the morality of a situation in which an actual existing human life is either intentionally prevented from becoming a person or stopped from continuing as a person. In this particular situation, the human life in question is at the beginning of its existence. 3) The human life terminated in an abortion would likely continue to live and properly develop without an act of will by other persons. So if you can accept the above, and I know many of you cannot, the questions become simple. If the human life is a person, are there moral instances in which it can be terminated? I think in some cases one could make compelling arguments for yes. The life of the pregnant woman for example. The will of the woman to become pregnant is another. These examples coupled with an individual’s right to privacy are the primarily reasons why abortion is legal. If the human life is not yet a person, and simply represents a life that will likely become a person, is it morally neutral for the pregnant woman to terminate it under all circumstances? This second question, in my opinion, is the more difficult of the two. I don’t see how one could answer yes. If the answer is most often no, this is why abortion is most often immoral.

Sisyphus, is “person” really human defined? What if the deciding person is wrong? My question in part asks how bad is murder? How strongly should it be avoided? Should people be compelled not to commit murder? It is against the law to fire a gun into a darkened room. Mooeypoo, I did say the woman was pregnant. Perhaps I am wrong, but I do believe that pregnancy happens sometime after conception. Also I intentionally left the gestation period ambiguous. So does abortion start out morally neutral and increase in its immorality with gestation? Or is it morally neutral up to “personhood” and then its morally very bad (murder)? Can such act really just be a little bit murder? Finally I don’t get the twins comment. Why wouldn’t double murder be worse? Morally? Good question. Would you want to have such a person as a friend?

Abortion ends a human life. Perhaps that life is not yet a person. If it is a person, then ending that life is murder. Abortion is an elective choice. It is a choice that perhaps commits murder. To what extent should such a choice be avoided? When does such a choice become immoral. Let’s say a woman chooses to become pregnant. A few weeks after missing her period she takes a pregnancy test which turns out positive. The same day she finds out she has been unexpectedly accepted to participate in an archeological dig in Egypt. The fact that she was passed over for this opportunity in part lead her to make the choice to become pregnant. She doesn’t see how her pregnancy would be compatible with this unexpected carrier opportunity. Would it be moral for her to now choose to abort? So again, at what point does a choice that is perhaps murder become an immoral choice?

Think more along the lines of hybrid power generation. Pairing solar and fuel cell power generation along with batteries provides a reliable 24 hour power source. One could also switch to local DC power distribution eliminating wasteful AC-to-DC adaptors . As mentioned, air and water could be warmed with waste heat. Most other heating and cooking could be done by burning gas directly, which is generally efficient and can be made very efficient. I would guess that gas distribution is cheaper (not certain) than AC power distribution. Also in many if not most locations, the gas infrastructure is in place. Also, one could use propane or some other bottled gas. In most locations propane is already cheaper than power grid electricity for heating. So if Bloom can produce fuel cells at the proper scale and price, they have produced a path to better efficiency. If It’s cheaper just to burn gas however, few people will switch. If you are hoping for a solution that doesn’t consume hydrocarbons at all, I hope you are a very patient person.

Perhaps if you stated your question as in the following, more people would agree with you. A distinction of fairness: is it unfair to force under penalty of law a minority of the population to pay a larger share?

Perhaps I should have just simply stated that socialism is doomed to fail because it rewards need and punishes ability. Human natural self interest or self preservation will therefore bias people to become needier and less able in a socialist system. Why put forth effort when your goals can be achieved without effort? Why become able when the able are castigated and the needy are considered noble? With regard to the intent of this thread (universal healthcare), an incremental approach to achieving socialism is still an attempt to achieve socialism. Why pretend it is not?

What's wrong with socialism? As I have mentioned in previous threads, socialism goes against human nature. Individual human beings naturally act in their own self interest. This in and of itself is neither selfish nor greedy, but practical. It is simply part of our natural self survival mechanism. So for example, it is in my self interest to live with other human beings because a mutual defense is better than an individual defense and labor can be specialized producing surpluses. Also it is in an individual's self interest to seek companionship and mating. As a society evolves this self interest becomes more enlightened. I am willing to pay for the creation of a fire department because my home may one day catch fire. Also living next door to a burned down wreck of a home decreases my property value. I am willing to pay for public roads because said roads will decrease the cost of goods and services I wish to purchase from the fruits of my labor. If you want to understand this better read Adam Smith. The free enterprise system exploits mans natural self interest to produce wealth and prosperity. Socialism can best be summed up with the statement "From each according to their ability to each according to their need." The central premise of socialism is that the collective is more important than the individual. Perhaps one could argue that placing such importance on the collective is the ultimate form of enlightenment, but such an intellectual position will have difficulty overriding the natural human predisposition to self interest. A more likely result is that individuals will see that it is in their self interest to be needy rather than able. Since need is rewarded in socialist systems, people work to become more needy. Also in socialist systems, ability is discouraged since the product of ones ability and effort is forcibly taken. Natural human self interest dooms socialism to failure. In several topics within science forms, post often talk about the degree to which a government is socialistic. Public schools are often given as an example of a socialistic aspect of the United States. I disagree. I willingly pay for public schools because it is in my self interest to do so. It has nothing to do with the needs of the little brats that attend those schools. Social Security is the same way. I don't care about the needs of old people. I just want them out of the workplace and job market. When it is in my self interest to bribe them out, I'm willing to do so. In other words motivation maters. If I am acting in my own self interest instead of the collective self interest my actions are not socialistic. Some may see my understanding as harsh. Well, nature is harsh. Also, it is natural for human beings to avoid leaches.

This statement is simply not true. The NOAA link [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/us-summary.html] provides the following surrounding the 100 year data graph. For clarity I again post the graph. You don’t even need the above NOAA text to see that the purple line is the trend line. The blue line is the data. The red line is the filtered data. The filtered red line appears to be a simple linear regression of the blue line. For simplicity sake, look at the red line. Captured between the red line and purple line is an area. If the area captured below the purple line is equal to the area above the purple line, then the purple line is indeed the trend line. This is obvious by simple observation. I am not arguing this, the NOAA data is clearly demonstrating this. The continental contiguous 48 states are indeed part of the world. I have a particular interest in this area. It is where I keep my stuff. I simply displayed that year in particular. The plot above shows 100 years. I accept all 100 of those years and the trend line provided by NOAA. Data NOAA is so proud of they attached there seal to it. From this link you provide the attached quote. The bold text, in my opinion, are examples of cherry picking. Finally in a previous post you stated the following. Imagine if I were to point to a part of the 100 year graph and state "ignore that bit because it occurred during an unusually strong El Nino. So who is cherry picking? Again I accept all 100 years.

I did not create this data. I did not create this plot. I did not draw that mean line. I also did not write or provide all of the other information at this post. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/us-summary.html The fine people at NOAA did. Do you have a problem with my source? With regard to cherry picking, the plot shows the last 100 years, a period of time that includes all of the significant CO2 contributions of man to the atmosphere. This seems to be a significant period of time to me. Not to you?

Actually, I'm full of hope. I see a bright future with few problems, particularly few climate problems. Perhaps this image will provide you with some hope. If not that one perhaps this will. Wow, a whole 0.1C above normal in 100 years. But that small of an average deviation is obviously just noise. The people at NOAA seem hopeful as well. Perhaps you should read this. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/us-summary.html

I'm fine with that interpretation. My plot is still within the uncertainty so it is probable. I still contend that it is equally likely. Yes, I freely admit that. But that is my point. The graph presented by the author does not pass the sniff test. If a guy with a few statistics classes under his belt can use the data presented to reach an opposite conclusion what good is the analysis presented?

Come on. Look at that red line again. Can you really tell me that red line within the gray uncertainty is not simply the mean of the uncertainty? Are we not looking at the same plots? Yes, this is exactly what I did, but how is it wrong? First you say I don't have a methodology and then you quite correctly explain my methodology. Yes, my methodology is very simplistic. Again, how is it wrong? I appreciate your frustration, but please have empathy for mine. The graph was presented as proof. Its intent is to show how all outcomes point to a dire future. When I look at the plot and read how it is described I can see a simple alternate interpretation. The plot shows variance in the historical global temperature. We are not currently outside that variance. So what's to worry about? When I look at this graph, it seems to me that its author is simply using improved accuracy over time to support projections of future warming. I intentionally pulled a plot line "out of my ass" that showed past warming during periods where uncertainty was large. I believe the line I created is equally likely to the line presented by the author of the graph. If this is wrong please explain how? Perhaps I do not understand how the uncertainty presented should be used. I did however clearly explain how I used it. Can you provide an alternate explanation? If not at least admit that you do not know. The point of my post is that we know far too little about the mechanisms that drive global temperature to place any credibility in dire projections shown in the graph.

When I look at the plot I see a red line. That red line, if I understand it correctly, is an estimate of global temperature based on the historical record. It is an estimate because there are uncertainties in that historical record. Again, if I understand the graph, the gray fuzz, if you will, on either side of the red line represents the uncertainty in the historical record. Am I wrong so far? I accept the red line as the mean historical record. The person presenting the data simply averaged out the uncertainty. How am I doing? But how does this uncertainty work? I don't believe it works like band limited white noise added to a coherent signal. If it were like band limited white noise added to a coherent signal, averaging out the noise would be the best approach. Instead, all we know is that the temperature did in fact lie somewhere within the bounds of the gray fuzz. Also, since sudden global temperature shifts are unlikely a smooth functional plot is reasonable. Have I gone off the rails yet? The plot I present fits with the gray fuzz of uncertainty and is a smooth function. I would argue that any plot that met that criteria would be an acceptable estimate of the historical record (wait for it) based on the global temperature record presented in the graph. Did I miss something? The green dashed line shows the maximum high temperature deviation of the historical temperature record including uncertainty. Is this wrong? If this is true, then as long as we stay below this line everything is okay. Right? So now we have to look into the future. If one were to make projection based on the historical temperature record including uncertainty, without considering other data sources, one would expect that temperatures have now peaks and would begin to cool. Without considering other data sources, could one predict something else based on the historical temperature record including uncertainty? I think not. The projections made in the graph are based on an acceptance of a strong causal relationship of global temperature to man made greenhouse gases like CO2. Am I missing something here? I agree, their models are based on accepting the concept of a strong causal relationship of global temperature to man made greenhouse gases. I find them "alarmist" because we have not crossed the boundary of the historical record. At the moment global temperatures are still within the "normal" range. The graph shows this clearly. That is exactly what I did. Engineers, like me, extract valid data from plots like this every day. Why do you think plots are published in engineering handbooks? There is nothing unscientific about such an analysis. No I looked at the plot and did the statistical analysis with brain. Well I have been a communications engineer for better than two decades. Most of my carrier has been dealing with extracting week signals from noise. I have also taken several graduate level courses in statistics. So yea, I would say I'm at least not a novice.

The image in my last post is no longer displayed so I offer this new one with additions. Bascule asks "How is plotting model output "alarmist"?" In my new image I include comments on "alarmist" projections based on acceptance of a dominant causal relationship of global temperature to man made greenhouse gases like CO2 and Methane. I also provide one of many acceptable global temperature projections based on the historical global temperature record alone. This projection is not "alarmist." Since a layman like myself can easily see that the current global temperature is still within normal statistical variance, why should I be concerned with projections based on a relationship that is not yet proven to be causal or dominant?

When did I say that the data you shared in your post 64 was wrong? This is my first post in this topic. I just think that you and those that create such plots have a rather alarmist view.

just my opinion...

North Korea's most powerful weapon is their 22 million starving people. No one wants to deal with all those refugees when North Korea collapses. Not China. Not Russia. Not South Korea or its allies. The government of North Korea, if you can call one naval gazing megalomaniac supported by an absolute cult of personality a government, survives mainly on foreign aid it extorts by saber rattling. Dropping a single 500 lb cast iron bomb on a military facility near Pyongyang would likely cause the entire house of cards to fall down. If UN fuel and grain aid were cut off the country would fall apart. But then what would we do with all the refugees? KIM Jong Il wants more so he needs a bigger saber to rattle. We want all those starving Koreans to stay in North Korea at the smallest possible expense to us so we find a way to keep KIM Jong Il in power. If KIM Jong Il dropped dead tomorrow and his son agreed put in place a reform package of democratic government, freedom of the press, and open borders it would be a financial catastrophe for north east Asia. No government really wants that to happen.