john5746

Sounds good. Seems like this position has been hiding in the corner of late, or maybe its just me. Hopefully they will put his talents to good use, otherwise, he might be more effective at CNN.

That's funny! I actually thought of that later, wondering if anyone would think that. I do wear glasses and am blob-ish, so you got me. LOL

Oh yeah, that's the ticket - underestimate your enemy and send in the weakest possible force. Worked in Somalia for the US. Yep. Maybe the UN can try that - send in a force of European and Arab countries and root out Hamas. Heck, they probably can do it without guns, because they know how to use just the right amount of force.

Yeah, that may be true. The Jews wrote that stuff when the world was small, so they never dreamed of world conquest, I guess. They only have permission to kill for that plot of land? What a little god. The Christians and Muslims take that right with them where ever they go. I think Mecca is pretty important though. I mean their travel to that site would be ruined if Americans took over and strip clubs serving beer and pork rinds were all about the place. Anyway, of course I don't support a theocracy - the Brits and Americans didn't want them, so I guess having them go there was a good solution. That is old history though.

There also isn't any scientific and objective reason to stop pedophilia either - at least for say 9 year-olds? Just remove the emo crap out of it.

Which makes decisions for one's healthcare all the more difficult and subjective. Most medications come with side effects, so popping pills in hopes that it might work is not always the best path. Lots of speculation at this point about the boy's situation. It appears he may have had autism, which apparently comes with seizures in many cases. I find it hard to believe that no doctor would have thought of different medications for the seizures that might have worked, but It seems like Travolta had no problem with medicine, but maybe did not want to have psychiatry involved. I would also expect people of that wealth to have a traveling nurse, but not sure that would have made a difference. This is a really tough question, especially in light of all the high sugar foods given to kids in front of TV's. That isn't a religion, but it sure is leading to disaster and "western" medicine just adds a heap of cost to the problem.

Yes, if Hamas did this, everyone would just love them to death and be on their side. They can do this because Israel has not vowed to wipe them off the map. Gandhi couldn't have done what he did without his head. Comparing Jews to Nazis is pretty stupid. Unless you think everyone is a Nazi. I mean, at least Israel is going into the right country, unlike Bush. So if you are poor, then that means you can murder? Really? How are living standards in Saudi Arabia or Iran? Especially if you were brainwashed in school to hate Jews. I beg to differ, heard of Mecca? Heard of the crusades in Jerusalem? All the Abrahamic religions want that property.

oh, I didn't word that very well. I mean that cousin marriages could be repeated within groups much easier than successive 40-year old women having babies.

I made a typo in my first post - I think it should be legal for cousins to marry, but should be frowned upon. I don't think the risk of defects is the only consideration. How deabilitating the defects are to the person, chance of cumulation and other effects to society should be considered. For example, incest has potential to cause strife in the nuclear family and is more easily repeated than say people with a certain recessive gene mating together. In you example above, a ban on cousin marriages can be applied indiscriminately and is probably more easily repeatable than 40 year old women having children.

I would like to know what an appropriate response would be. Should Israel shoot missles blindly at Gaza every now and then? Should they send police forces in there to be kidnapped, tortured, dragged around for display and then traded for criminals? Do people think this is a game or something? IMO, the arab nations should come up with a solution to the problem such as: Have the people of Gaza slowly removed from the area into other arab nations. or make it a part of Eqypt and they will be responsible for them or make it a viable, self sustaining area(but first, Hamas and any other criminals need to be removed) Can this small area be viable? Not sure. The international community could offer some funds for any of these situations, but the money would have to somehow be kept from funding weapons.

I think so, especially if society takes the responsibility for health care, etc. The more privileges one has, the more responsibilities one must take. The devil is in the details. I think situations that are not genetic in nature - incest for example, would not be discriminatory, so that is easier than say family diseases. Also, disturbance to the nuclear family unit should be considered also. So there may be people with genetic diseases with a higher % of offspring problem, but they would be allowed, while incest would still be illegal. It isn't just the level of risk. I guess cousin marriages would be ok, until you get into some of those cult situations, but that's pretty rare. I guess it should be illegal, but should not be promoted. Not sure how that's done.

What were the 9/11 hijackers thinking? What were the guys that blew up the golden dome thinking? They are killers that thrive in a chaotic environment. They want a war between Israel and muslims, IMO.

I guess it would make more sense to try and fly like a bat, since they are mammals also? I'm guessing there is a reason we don't have huge bats though.

I don't see how anyone can make a claim to religious rights - the Mormons who want to marry more than one wife are not allowed, so the "law" trumps religion. It's really an appeal to traditional culture, which is always changing. Age of consent, race and women's rights have changed marriage, but some tend to think of it as some unchanged union that goes back to Adam and Eve.

No.

That's not what I understood from the article. They are happy with wind and solar power and are fighting for government to help build the transmission lines from those sources. However, they realize these lines can be utilized for transmission from dirty sources. They realize that not building them only stops progress, so we need some assurances and system to differentiate clean from dirty sources. Build the lines, but have incentives for clean power and carbon taxes for dirty power. Its called oversight.

My username was completely arbitrary. My name is not even close to being John and those numbers mean nothing.

I'm reminded of that Senator that said IQ was not a requirement for office in Religulous.

since we are speculating.... as has been stated already, global warming doesn't affect all areas equally, so some climates may become more habitable, while others get worse. Maybe Europe and North America benefited at the cost of Africa, the islands and South America? We tend to assume anything supporting current conditions would be best, but maybe climates would be better today without the warming or would have been more stable. In any case, if this is true the change was gradual enough for people to adjust, move or die gracefully. Sudden changes like the warming we have now will almost certainly result in conflict, famine, disease, etc. Some areas may change for the better, but only if those people can adjust to those changes and can cope with the global changes surrounding them.

I think that is a key point, that soldiers usually are not eager to slaughter citizens, but want to defeat the enemy. Hamas is just a well organized group of well-armed thugs. I would hope that most of the palestinian people do not share their motives, but articles like the link below lead me to believe they probably love it. I think America should bow out and let Israel defend itself, but take a stronger interest in somehow building up Gaza and the West Bank. Only paying attention when there is violence is exactly what feeds terrorism. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/palestinian_hateeducation_cont.html

Well, it seems Obama also has Rev. Joseph Lowery, who supports gay marriage speaking after Warren. Having Warren there is a small olive branch to the evangelicals - at least it isn't a cabinet position. I guess if those on the right can deal with people who are pro-choice, the left have to tolerate this as well. Of course people should protest and make noise, that is not being intolerant. Oh give me a break! That same old tired consistent argument? Yeah, I can see that coming from an idiot who thinks life hasn't evolved. Marriage has never included incest, pedophilia, polygamy and tribe membership? Don't even get me started on divorce. I realize that marriage may never have been intended for same sex partners, but to think this concept has not evolved and been influenced through various cultures is very naive. I happen to agree with Warren in terms of incest, polygamy and pedophilia, but not because they fly in the face of some 5000 year old definition. I argue based on how I think they will influence society. As society changes, we revisit these questions and even redefine words and meaning. Yes, language is not static. We learn, adapt and move on. PS - I am sending a letter via change.gov telling Obama that I would love to see him REACH OUT to the atheist/secular community by having an atheist "moral" guide or having one give a speech at his NEXT inauguration!

In my mind, marriage currently is defined as a loving sexual bond between a man and a woman that usually involves the creation of children. Of course, children and sex is not obligatory, but stable, healthy families is the objective. Some now think that this should be extended to a bond between two adults, regardless of gender. While children cannot be conceived between the pair, adoption and insemination(lesbians) is possible. Arguments should be made for or against this particular case, dragging in all possibilities and then suggesting its all or none is a false dichotomy, IMO So, to me I think the baby(marriage) is important to a society. I want to keep the baby and allow it to grow and change, not kill it because we are thinking about changing the bathwater. We should consider each situation on the slippery slope separately and have reasons for pro or con. The arguments should be base on the effect on society, not circular arguments that gay is bad because its gay or slippery slope arguments. Some examples below: A marriage between straight men is not a loving bond in the spirit of a marriage. Again, sex is primary, not for every couple, but certainly for every group consideration. Incest has potential problems with offspring and would be harmful to the family unit, IMO. It would weaken families to consider siblings or parents potential sexual partners. Polygomy gets confusing legally and in the case of many wives has the potential of abuse historically(maybe less so now) Of course, there would be arguments for them as well, but they should be considered in isolation. After all, they have no more to do with gay marriage than with heterosexual marriage, so why bring them up now?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/12/16/2008-12-16_happy_birthday_adolf_hitler_boy_with_naz.html Of course, in American culture, maybe he will become a famous "celebrity" like Paris Hilton.

LOL, I'm envisioning a Monty Python sketch: <Cleese> "Oh, this gay couple wants this list of rights?" <Palin> (Opens scroll and reads list of rights bestowed by marriage) <Idle> "But your gay!" (Some bickering back and forth about incest, beastiality and polygomy) <Cleese> "OK, we can't decide so let's just take away EVERYONE's rights" <crowd> Throws garbage at the gay couple Gang - a group of people up to no good. I think that is what you imply in context. Marriage - a union between two people who usually intend to form a family, the foundation of a society. Hmmm....which one to choose? It's so hard. It's like chocolate or vanilla. Society recognizes companies, religions, community and charities as groups and affords them benefits. They are just highly organized gangs that are seen as having positive impacts on society. Bad gangs are seen as a social ill. Carrot and stick.

From a utility aspect, it seems they should be logic based, with a prime directive to be pro-life(esp. pro-human life). To have true morality, I think they would need to experience pain, pleasure and empathy. In regards to human safety, I think we are in danger either way. A machine can logically conclude that humans need to be terminated. If they surpass our intelligence, they will find a way to create or improve themselves anyway and then the answer to your question will be up to them. If they can freely replicate, then it will eventually "happen". Maybe the best way is to give them emotions, be kind to them and hope most of them love us in return? Nah, slavery and oppression sounds better, why else would we create them?