Phi for All

What do you mean by "reacted"? From this wiki article, the station emits "a short, monotonous buzz tone, repeating at a rate of approximately 25 tones per minute, for 24 hours per day". What do you mean "link in the years"? And by reaction, are you talking about a voice transmission?

So let's say your car breaks down on a county road outside the city. A passerby has a truck with a hitch, you have a chain with hooks, so the passerby offers to hook the chain from your bumper to his hitch and tow your car, with you behind the steering wheel, to the nearest garage. Cell phone coverage isn't available this far from the city. Along the way, the county sheriff pulls you both over and tells you that the law says you have to use a tow bar when towing another vehicle. Is it ethical to expect you to check the county laws regarding towed vehicles before you attempt this handy solution?

But in your new system, you'd have to have a way to credit your account when you sold something. With no cash, we'd need a cheap and easy way to put money back in your account when you have a garage sale, or sell your car. Barter would be more prevalent so who would know how many TVs you decided to take on so you could trade them for credit or trade them for a used treadmill? I don't think it would stop crime much unless everything was coded from the manufacturer, requiring more laws about uncoded transactions. And think of this: if there was no cash, all your credit would be stored on cards, and those cards get stolen all the time. A paperless economy would probably require you to have your account numbers tattooed somewhere on your body, somewhere it couldn't be chopped off and used.

Is it easy to tell if digital photos or video from a cell phone or camera have been edited? If so, then I would say cover the cops with a law making it illegal to edit and post a video in such a way that it misleads viewers into thinking it's "real time". Cops shouldn't have to put up with videos that have been pieced together to make them look bad. No one should, really. But taking away our right to record the truth as it happened? Absurd. Did I miss it when they told us what that lady and her son were being detained for? Why were the cops chasing them down? Did they ever arrest her for anything or was this just "resisting arrest" with the charges dropped only after the brutality was brought out on video?

No. The Islamic fatwah involved calls for men to partake of the breast milk of non-related women they see on a regular basis to make it allowable for them to see her unveiled. Suckling like this technically makes them related. My point was that if they had sex with her after that, it would make it technically incest instead of adultery, but adultery is already covered by the 9th Commandment, and would seem to be the more heavyweight crime. Not in Islamic law. First cousin marriage isn't forbidden. I don't understand why you're quoting US law when we're talking about an Islamic fatwah that has been issued. It seems to be an obfuscation. It's enough to allow you to see a woman unveiled, which is only allowed to close family members. I don't know for sure on this part, but I think it very likely that having sex with a close family member would be considered incest under Sharia law.

Yeah, there's something going on there. Everybody there knew that was an awesome dive except that second judge. I don't know what he thinks he saw but there is no way that dive deserved a 7.5. Before you take the judge up that ladder, let me turn the platform around to face the other side.

When there are 5 judges, the highest and lowest scores are thrown out, so he ended up with those three 9s and that second judge didn't affect his score. But you can see the middle judge looking back at the second judge's score like, "WTF?! Dude...."

Right now it seems so personal, like the thief knew exactly what he was taking from you and did it anyway. I'd be willing to bet though that if you knew it was impersonal, if you talked to the guy and made just that much contact with him as a person, you wouldn't call for his death. You'd probably still want to chop off a hand, but death for theft would probably be off the table.

No one said it was. I was questioning why they feel a need for a fatwah to create a situation where a man would be guilty of incest on a technicality rather than stick with the greater commandment not to mess with someone else's wife. You wouldn't really be a woman's son if you'd only drank her breast milk, so I'm not sure why you're questioning why it would only be technically incest (based on this fatwah) if you had sex with her. I'm not sure which the Islamic leaders want most, a legal way for men to see non-family females unveiled, a more guilt-ridden reason not to have sex with your friend's wife or a legal way to grope some breast (sort of a Halaal Happy Meal). Religion seems to spawn this kind of mentality, where it's OK to suckle milk from a woman's breasts to make it proper for you to see her face, or shoot doctors who perform abortions.

The crazy got Clipper.

I did, but where's the relevance? We were discussing an Islamic man who drinks breast milk from a woman being considered technically a family member, and would therefore be committing incest (technically) instead of adultery if he had sex with that woman. Again, I don't see the need for another rule to keep Islamic men from sleeping with married women, especially one that involves them suckling from them. And it must be the milk itself that holds the family magic rather than feeding from the breast, since some authorities are saying it's OK to just drink it expressed into a glass.

Surely there must be something in Islamic law that would declare someone technically a family member that doesn't involve drinking bodily fluids. And in't a devout muslim covered by the 9th Commandment in this regard? Why would strictures against technical incest trump those for coveting thy neighbor's wife?

So you believe in solving one problem by adding a few orders of magnitude to your problems?

For your psychic "lactose link" to work, the husband would also have to partake. And the more friends you have, the hungrier your children are. This doesn't seem right either. I'm just going to mail you some, you fatwahead. Let's do a poll! Who are you more likely to enter into an adulterous relationship with? 1) A friend's wife, or 2) A friend's wife who's already let you suck on her breasts?

Don't let the red matter get near the wormhole.

Please explain to me why the only guys I can trust to be alone with my wife are the ones who've suckled milk from her breasts.

Somebody's been baking ridiculous chip cookies. Got fatwah?

They look more like cartoon red lips to me, rather than lipstick red lips. I don't see anything overtly feminine about them at all. That just makes them a bit gross and humorous rather than misogynistic, imo. Frankly, standing at one of them, I would fantasize about it being the mouth of a telemarketer or a senator rather than a woman. This is PC all the way.

This seems like either spam or some kind of lecture. It certainly doesn't invite discussion, which is sort of a requirement for a discussion forum. I'm going to lock it and remove the link. ecolijohn, send me a PM if you object and can show reason why it should stay.

Well then, until you can sprout a nice full Moses we're going to have to shun you. Don't try to enter the village or talk to any of the women. If we see the skin of your face around here again, you'll get stoned, and not the good kind. You should be old enough to remember the old Halloween Hobo disguise. For a quick costume we used to rub some egg white on our cheeks and then stick some coffee grounds on there. Instant beard stubble. Of course, you had to wash before Sunday School, so I'm betting the church elders are easily fooled by anything resembling follicular activity.

You'd probably be pariah until your beard grows back. If it doesn't grow back (or you never had one to begin with), you wouldn't be considered one of the faithful. That could have several different outcomes, I suppose.

A beard is something highly visible that distinguished men from women, like breasts. I've read that conquerors in biblical times used to shame the male prisoners of war by shaving their beards off. I think it was also a pagan practice to shave as a sign of mourning, so the Israelites were forbidden to do so as a way of proving their faith. I think it's mostly a masculine thing. Only men grow facial hair so a really manly man must have a lot of it. Maybe it's a virility thing as well, something sexually selected for back then. Beards protect the face from sun and sand as well. They aren't very hygienic, but perhaps they also soften the blow from all the smiting going around in that era.

Rip:20 (Lepton) It's Rip:30 here from Colorado. Interested in getting better with math Welcome Rip:20, you are the winner of this week's Ferrous Patella Award for most ironic comment. It's the altitude, I know.

Knowledge is a tool, and can therefore be used for either ethical or unethical purposes. The need of society is for its members to use knowledge ethically and when they don't, they are working outside of that society. This is one of the things that define a society. the tree asked in post #21 if there was value in learning beyond personal empowerment. I responded with an example of benefiting society and the rebuttals have all been about behavior that is considered outside those boundaries. I think you have to be willing to suggest that criminal behavior, while realistic in our world, is also acceptable behavior within our society to make those arguments work. If I learn how to be a good locksmith and I use the knowledge to help people protect their homes from criminals, I benefit society and am a functioning part of it. If I use that knowledge to break into people's homes then I become a criminal and am functioning outside of that society. I am being sought by the police, my liberties are curtailed, my business is even threatened.

I don't rhyme all the time. He keeps posting the same hate-filled stuff under new memberships about every week or two. We throw most of it away, but sometimes we keep threads like this to show how silly such attempts are. He does this all over the web. I don't think he reads anything but his own stuff. Yes, we sometimes modify threads like these as part of an attempt to show the futility of this kind of hateful preaching. We call it "sparfing".