waitforufo

If a person expects science to answer all their questions, that person will be disappointed or that person in my opinion is rather shallow. That is particularly true when asking the "why" questions. One need not turn to religion or "miracles" as Dennisg did in the OP. There are several different branches of philosophy devoid of a god(s) or a creator that attempt to answer such questions. Many of them are quite good. Within human history, religion however has been a common method to answer such questions. In my opinion, to truly understand the current human condition, one needs to have an honest understanding of religions and how religions have improved and detracted from the human condition. One can study this without becoming a believer. With regard to science however, I will state again, religion has no place in science. Science stands on its own. Belief doesn't play a part in science. In science one ultimately needs measured data.

Recently in the politics thread topic "Prop. 8 gay marriage ban goes to Supreme Court" I stated the following. The error, in my opinion, with the OP is that it is attempting to mix religious and scientific principals. They just don't mix. I believe this is at least part of ParanoiA's point. (Forgive me ParanoiA if I am not reading you correctly.) No one in science is seeking a proof to the existence of the universe. Just look around it's there. Yes, scientists are seeking answers to how the universe came about. This knowledge could potentially bring about great benefit to mankind. When a person considers why the universe came about that's a philosophical or religious question. When asking that question science has no interest and will provide no answers. Science for example will never be capable of defining the word "courage." That task is left primarily to philosophers. Philosophers particularly struggle with why we all know courage when we see it. Modern science started at the transition of the middle ages and the enlightenment. Like the similar argument during classical times primarily between philosophy and science, the argument shifted to one between religion and science. Scientist argued that philosophy and religion could have all it's high minded "why" answers and definitions, but they had to hold up to the truth discovered by scientifically measured observations. To be a scientist does not mean you have to be an atheist. It does mean that you have to set aside all your religious principals when trying to explain how things come about in the natural world. The fact that many great scientists were devout religious people proves this can be done. Ask a question like the OP, and people will always be suspect of your science. On the topic of creationism and intelligent design, science owes no burden to religion. The truth found by science stands on its own. It is the burden of religious believers to reconcile their faith to the truth found by science. All the major western religions require their followers to make this reconciliation. To deny scientific truth is an abandonment of both science and religion. On the topic of religion, I don't think you can claim to be a Christian and at the same time deny a belief in creationism and intelligent design. No, I'm not talking about believing that the universe was created 5000 years ago in 6 days. Again, no major Christian Church requires such a belief. They do all however require the following belief. As I said, it is up to the believers of the above to reconcile all that is known to science with this belief. Science has no interest in how such believers go about this reconciling.

Then quit crying about it.

iNow, I think your last statement to John Cuthber was a little out of line. If you ever wonder why participants in science forums topics get personal with you, perhaps you should consider your post above. ParanoiA, Your reminded me of when I use to work with union employees from the IBEW IBEW = International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers We use to call them IBEW = I Barely Ever Work. John Cuthber, I think things are different in the UK than in the states. As I mentioned Boeing has an engineers union but such unions are rare.

My experience with unions as both a union member and as management is that unions are apposed to all improvements in productivity. Improving productivity reduces the number of union employees required to accomplish a job. When I was a member of the UAW there were complaints from the union when new fasteners were introduced that allowed quicker assembly of sub-components. The union was also against laser scan inventory tags. Less labor was required to take inventory and improvements in accuracy meant inventory needed to be taken less often. Unions are very anti technology. Then the unions wonder why the companies they work for can't compete. Still, I'm glad unions are around.

I have belonged to unions (UAW, IATSE). The jobs I held while a union member paid better than the same job from a non union employer. Those union places of employment, however no longer exist. They just couldn't compete. Unions in many respects have caused their own demise by promoting changes in labor law. By winning benefits for everyone through legislation, they no longer provide a comparative benefit to their members through collective bargaining with management. I think that is a sad thing. Workers would be better off negotiating within the capitalist system, than having benefits provided to them through socialistic government. Another example, in my opinion, of how socialism kills everything it touches. The other problem with union gains through legislation is that legislation provides less flexibility to the economy than union contracts would. The flexibility provided by negotiated contracts would protect jobs by increasing corporate competitiveness while at the same time considering worker needs and welfare. I don't currently belong to a union. Engineering unions do exist. Engineers at Boeing are unionized for example. If I had a choice, I don’t think I would join such a union today. I do however believe unions provide a positive good to society. I don't think any of us would like to live in a society without unions. Given the opportunity, management would grind people into the dirt. Individuals are just another expendable unit of labor. The union/management power balance changes over time. Unions are weak at the moment in part because they have given too much of their power to government. But if management gains too much power, particularly power backed by government, the unions will be back, and we will all be glad we have them.

These rifle bans are all silly cosmetics. The original post mentions a "barrel shroud." I'm reasonably sure they are trying to ban muzzle flash suppressors. Muzzle flash suppressors are used on military weapons to reduce the chance of location identification at night. Not much use in civilian applications unless you consider insurrection a civilian application (as many of our founders did). The reason they use the term "barrel shroud" instead of muzzle flash suppressor is because the term is more generic and avoids semantic issues. The problem with this is that there are muzzle enhancements that would fit the term "barrel shroud" that are used to improve weapon accuracy. For example Browning makes a system called BOSS (Ballistic Optimizing Shooting System) http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail.asp?value=001B&cat_id=035&type_id=005 BOSS is a barrel resonance tuning weight attached at the rifle muzzle. When a rifle is fired the bullet passes down the length of the barrel at a speed determined by the powder charge and the weight of the bullet. These cartridge characteristics as well as the barrel length attempt to ring the barrel like a bell but at a frequency determined by the time the bullet passes through the barrel. The barrel itself has a natural frequency based on its physical dimensions alone. If these two frequencies are properly matched, the barrel vibration looks like a half wavelength standing wave. In other words in wiggles in the middle but the breach end and the muzzle end are stationary. This significantly improves accuracy at long ranges. Also, since the barrel resonance can be tuned to match the cartridge, the resonance characteristic does not need to be damped by adding barrel weight. Barrel weight can therefore be reduced making the weapon easier to carry during the hunt. Most BOSS systems include holes drilled into the weight that act as a recoil break. Gasses leaving the barrel after the bullet push out through these holes and back toward the shooter reducing the force of recoil. Less recoil on the shooter also improves shooter accuracy, mostly because the shooter does not flinch in anticipation of a large recoil. So banning "barrel shrouds" would also ban rifles designed specifically for hunting or long range target shooting. Trying to ban "barrel shrouds" is just going to piss off hunters. Another cosmetic favorite of gun banners is to ban weapons with bayonet mounts. So importers of bolt action military surplus weapons have to grind off these mounts before importation. What is the point of this? Have we recently had a crime wave of bayoneting? There are probably more semi-automatic weapons in the US than any other type. A semi-automatic weapon fires one cartridge each time the trigger is pulled without manually cycling the receiver. So semi-automatic weapons include almost all handguns including revolvers and all rifles with the exception of pump, lever, and bolt action rifles. Pumps and lever action rifles however can be cycled manually very quickly. Almost everyone that owns more than one rifle owns a semi-automatic rifle. Generally this will be a 22 caliber (22 long rifle). The rounds for this rifle cost about 1 cent each. Because 22s are so prolific in both handguns are rifles, the 22 cartridge is the most dangerous (deaths and injuries) and the least likely to be successfully band. The second amendment says nothing about hunting. The recent Supreme Court decision says nothing about hunting (Heller). As a Republican, I truly hope the democrats try to ban guns.

The court challenge mentioned in the first post of this topic revolves around whether or not California law was properly followed in amending the California State Constitution. If the law was properly followed then the Constitution is amended. Judges within the state, including the state supreme court must apply that law regardless of its moral bearings. If the amendment strips people of their rights as guaranteed by federal constitution, then the amendment could be struck down in federal court. So let's say California, through constitutional amendment, banned left handed people from marriage. Could the California Supreme Court reject such an amendment? I don't see how. Well, they could if the law by which the constitution is amended was not properly followed. By the way I'm not a big fan of initiatives in general. In many (most?) states, the law cannot be changed by initiative. Changing a state constitution by initiative seems like a rather bad idea to me. To do so by simple majority seems even a worse idea. But that’s the law in California.

I think Prop 8 was a legitimate amendment to the California State Constitution. In my opinion a bad one, but none the less an amendment. I think the California Supreme Court will recognize it as such. Even if some of the justices have reservations on the revision versus amendment issue, I believe most will error on the side of caution. Their previous ruling on gay marriage was reversed by the will of the people. The will of the people must be heard. If the court does not do so, they will become or will be perceived as having become doctorial rulers not judges. I believe in time, hopefully a short time, the people of California will repeal this bad amendment.

I stand corrected. I also agreed completely with the rest of your post above. Still I find this hilarious. Their response is even more hilarious.

It's hilarious because…. 1) Sloppy work should always be ridiculed, and finding humor in people's mistakes is perhaps the mildest form of ridicule. 2) Its one thing to make a mistake, it's quite another to attract attention to it by declaring your mistake record breaking. When declaring a record, there is an implication that the data received extra scrutiny. By not providing that scrutiny, the record is simply a record breaking whopper. 3) Who found the mistake? Global warming skeptics. It would have been less embarrassing to Hanson and global warming enthusiasts if anyone else would have discovered and reported the error. The fact that it was found and reported by skeptics reinforces the opinion of skeptics that enthusiasts will accept any report that supports their enthusiasm. Hanson again provided skeptics with reasons to doubt.

I post this because mistakes are hilarious. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

I'm not sure if you pointed out Article IV, Section 1 of the constitution, commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause in a previous post but it applies to marriage and has been constitutional law from the start. Well, up until the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act]. This act has been challenged but the Supreme Court has not taken up any of the cases. As long as this act is law, the federal government does not require states to recognize gay marriages granted in other states. Personally, I don’t see this law as constitutional, but as I said the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to consider the law and has so far not done so.

Proposition 8 was created to reverse legislation from the bench. The outcome of the election with regard to proposition 8 should be of no surprise. The people don't like it when courts invent new laws. The people consider it dictatorial and therefore contrary to our democratic republic. Laws are best created through the legislative process. That way the people consider themselves participants in the argument, even when they lose the debate. They at least feel that they were heard or that their arguments were represented. The problem with representative legislation however is that it can be painfully slow. Every now and then the system needs a kick in the pants. Bench legislating is one method of providing this kick. At the state level, the initiative process is another method. When the legislature is moving too slow or contrary to the will of the people, bench legislating and initiatives force the legislative process to respond. Bench legislating and initiatives are however blunt instruments and there impact does not always produce the desired result. In my opinion the desired result would be moving the will of the people to understand that they are best served by just results. In the case of proposition 8, the courts legislated from the bench, and the people responded by countering this bench legislation by the initiative. These counter actions have, as evidenced in this form topic, increased the level of public debate on the topic. The gay community and those that support it have also increased their level of public protest. So, two kicks in the pants have been delivered. Perhaps the issue will now be properly decided by legislative means. That however remains to be seen. I recall a quote that laws are a bit like sausage, delicious, but you don't want to see it made.

Mr. Skeptic, As I said in my last post, I do believe you have made valid points. Also, I do believe the doG owes you a thoughtful response to your questions. In light of my previous post, let me try to respond where doG has not. The last question in the above set of three is likely the most important because it in a way summarizes the set. The population of a state can indeed impact the life, liberty, and property of the individuals within the state. I mentioned in a previous post that the ancient Greeks required all citizens to procreate regardless of the sexual orientation. Procreation was considered to be a civic duty. By linking procreation to the civic duty of marriage one could argue that marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals where civil unions would be available to any couple. Marriage would then require an intention to procreate. Perhaps the state could even restrict birth control until procreation occurred. Also perhaps the state would have to require medical tests prior to marriage to insure fertility. To establish such requirements based on an impact to life, liberty, and property of citizens in general, one would have to show a declining population tendency. Some states do indeed have this problem today (France, Italy, Spain, …). If requirement to procreate were not made however, I don't see how one could justify restricting gay marriage. As I have said many times now, I believe gays should have the right to marry. Again the last question seems to summarize the set. The state does care about children's health. Children have a right to life and if not properly fed, sheltered, and nurtured, they may be robbed of that right. If procreation is not required for marriage then these questions are moot. They do perhaps impact gay adoption of children still of an age where breast feeding is considered important. Judgments of right and wrong must be weighed against religious or philosophical principals. Religious or philosophical principals are generally irrelevant in matters of law, at least in secular societies. Your third question here is a bit more thought provoking. If the state sanctions or permits activities against the general will of the people governed, regardless of the correctness of that will, the state could collapse. A collapse of the state would have a profound impact on the life, liberty, and property of the population. In such circumstances the will of the people must be heard so that the state is preserved. Thankfully in societies like the US, those affected by immoral majority opinions still maintain the rights to free speech. Through this right, and through civil disobedience, they can attempt to persuade the majority. With regard to the last question of this set, the US is one country. Some laws are different from state to state but laws that impact life, liberty, and property are uniform and guaranteed by our constitution. So my car title issued in Washington State is valid in all states I visit because it is my property. My driver's license is valid in all states because driving affects my liberty. My marriage license is also valid in all states because this partnership impacts decisions about my life. Congress passed a federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act. This law permits marriage rights to be different in different states. This type of exception is generally not permitted in the US based on constitutional prohibition. This law has yet to be challenged at least to the Supreme Court level. There are however other precedents that would permit this law. For example one state can by issued permits allow its citizens to carry concealed weapons (firearms), but these issued permits may not be valid or respected in other states. This is obviously a ridiculous question. Our laws however are generally designed to specifically protect minorities of thought, race, religion, and inclination. As I have said. You should only restrict the liberty of an individual when their actions restrict the liberty of others. I did my best. What do you think? --------- doG, I hope it is clear from my previous post and this one that I don't think Mr Skeptic's valid points are valid for setting law. As I have said many times, I do think gay marrage should be legal. By the way, I'm not sure if Mr. Skeptic disagrees with gay marriage.

Mr. Skeptic has indeed raised valid points. Whether or not his points are applicable to determining just law is another matter. In my opinion there applicability depends on what set of principals you measure them by. I would argue that different principals apply in different areas of human thought and action. Below is a list of various principals that could be applied. This list should not be considered all inclusive. Philosophical Scientific Religious Legal Personal So for example if I say "green beans are bad, because green beans are icky" is this a valid point about green beans? Well, I don't like green beans, I think they are icky, eating them makes me unhappy, so based on my personal principals they are indeed bad, and therefore my statement is a valid point. Scientifically the point is completely wrong. When it comes to gay marriage however, the yardstick used should not be personal principals or even a collective of personal principals. We should use the founding principals of our legal and governmental system. These principals were dominantly articulated by modern or enlightenment philosophers like John Locke. They are based on the idea that people have the right to life, liberty, and property. So how do these principals apply to marriage? First, instead of gay marriage, let's try to apply them to polygamy. In our modern times, society tries to protect children from poverty. Doing so gives children an opportunity at the life to which they have a right. Polygamous marriages produce large families with poor financial support thereby requiring governmental social support. The property of non polygamous people is confiscated by government and given to polygamous people. The people from whom that property (money) is confiscated have a right to their property and therefore also have recourse in law. So the government has a choice to make. It can stop providing social support to polygamous people, or it can stop polygamous marriage. Our country chooses to ban polygamous marriage. In the above example, the valid points are that children must be protected from poverty because children have a right to live, and the people who would be coerced by law to surrender their property to support those children have a right to their property. It is therefore just to restrict the liberty of those who would participate in polygamous marriage because their liberty impacts the liberty of others. From our founding legal principals it would not be just to ban polygamous marriage because one or some find it icky. Back to gay marriage. How does it impact the life, liberty, or property of others? If you have a valid argument when compared to the legal principals of our country please make it. Finally, this is a science forum and therefore perhaps scientific principals should be mentioned. Most of those I'm sure would be based on psychology or genetics. Arguments derived from these scientific endeavors could and would likely be valid and add weight to ones position, but such arguments would be moot if gay marriage was found to have a meaningful impact on the life, liberty, or property of those that do not participate. I just don't see how gay marriage impacts the life, liberty, or property of those who choose not to so marry.

First, we are off topic and perhaps a new thread should be started. Yes you are correct, banks don't want to foreclose for the reasons you mention. Bank loans must however perform. I believe this is actually required by law. If people aren’t making loan payments something must be done. Sometimes banks will forgive a portion of the debt to reduce the borrower's payments. (I think this is done by "short selling" but I'm not sure that is the correct term.) By forgiving part of the debt the loan then begins to perform at least marginally. The bank takes a loss, the borrower's home value is reduced, and the borrower credit takes a hit. Since this transaction is recorded it has an impact on all home values. Even when this is done, it is at the discretion of the bank. On the worst loans they will foreclose just to establish what the market will bear. Foreclosure of debt reduction, my argument is still valid. This is best done by banks than directly by the government. The correction will be quicker and less politics will be involved. Above I mentioned that I believe that bank loans must perform by law. The reason I say this is that banks have restrictions on property ownership. If someone stops paying on a loan, the bank in effect owns the property, they just haven’t gone through the legal motions to complete the transaction. To keep banks from having hidden ownership, I believe they must prove that their loans are performing.

Just my opinion, but if the government had gone through with purchasing bad loans, the government would have very soon had two options. 1) Foreclosing on loans and forcing bankruptcies. 2) Forgiving the loans. Both options were untenable. Option one would have put the government in the position of putting families on the street. The evening news would have been full of pictures of little homeless waifs put out on the street by government. With option two, you would have angry crowds of people wondering way their neighbor was getting a free house from the government, but they still had to pay their mortgage. The new policy of purchasing stock means that the banks have to deal with the bad loans. So yes, more foreclosures. Everyone will think the banks are evil. But didn't we think that already? Aren’t the banks good at filling that roll? This new policy will clean the bad debt problem up quicker, but it won't be nice.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I believe people are born gay. I don't know enough about genetics to comment on how that comes about. I do however trust those that do know. Nowhere did is suggest that a persons sexual orientation could be overridden. Be that as it may, how a society treats individuals within its community should primarily be determined by how those individuals treat others, not their genetics. Since gay people do not deny the liberty of others or harm them in any other way, their liberty should also not be denied. So if gay people want to legally marry, they should be permitted to by law. On the other hand a person may be born a Sociopath. This may be determined by their genetics. If this genetic condition causes them to actually treat people poorly or deny them their liberty, then society has the right to deny the liberty of such individuals. It is their action that permits society to deny them their liberty. A just society would take into account their genetic condition and perhaps put them in a mental hospital rather than prison. In any case their liberty would be denied. My argument is that genetics should have limited impact on law. I think it is irrelevant to Proposition 8. I agree with this intention you mention, but it I believe bringing religion into the matter over complicates it.

I have never been particularly fond of the argument that since genetics plays a roll in sexual orientation, homosexuality must therefore be accepted. Sociopathic behavior has also been linked to genetics. (See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder, Causes) Sociopaths however exhibit various antisocial behaviors which often lead to harming others. As a society we should consider the potential genetic origins of sociopathic behavior when we limit the liberty of a sociopath, but based on their actions we would indeed limit their liberty. Homosexuals however do not limit the liberty of others and so they should be free to live their lives as they see fit.

Why wouldn't they??? This will be mandatory. I can just see it now. Tax payers giving four grand to Yale frat boys with trust funds for doing a week of community service at a fat camp for rich kids in the Adirondacks. Lets all sing kumbaya.

I know because I have been paying taxes for nearly three decades. I have filled out countless tax forms and extra schedules just to find out "no sorry you don't qualify." Then, when I complain about the wasted effort to friends and family, they all say "join the club." Look, you said you have a job. Trust me, don't get your hopes up too much about qualifying for any of Obama's tax credits. If you have a job, you are one of those people with abilities that supplies money to people with needs. Don't consider that community service you gready bastard. But don't worry Boxer, they will put you in a nice comfortable pasture one day. Well of course they are still changing it. They will continue to change it until no one qualifies for money. But they won't drop the mandatory service requirement.

I'm sure Obama is kidding as well.

…and therefore you won't be eligible.

As with all socialist programs, the crowd quickly forms at the feeding trough. Rest assured however, that the quantity and the quality of the slop will hardly make the effort worth the expenditure. Their will be so many conditions and exemptions placed on qualifying, few will receive anything. Those that do receive will receive little, maybe twenty bucks. Four thousand bucks for 40 hours of work? Well maybe if your life circumstance meets some very narrow profile. The rest will walk away with certificate of appreciation. Believe me, just get a job, you will then walk away with both earned pay and real self worth.