john5746

Never really thought about it before, but I would think you would really need to at least offer health care to the donor. Unless you have an emotional bond to the patient, why would someone donate their kidney?

The obvious difference being fact vs fiction. To be sure, violent games and movies should be controlled by the parents, IMO, but this is not the same as teaching kids to shoot real guns and hate real people. Religion is taught as fact, a very important fact. One that will lead to their destruction in this life and the afterlife, if they do not believe.

This and the part where Behe claims Astrology is science as well.

I think everyone is inherently racist and intolerant. It is human to generalize, specialize. It is something we all need to be aware of and work on. It makes us feel good to think it is only "those in the South" or "those Germans" or the "Brits" etc, but truth is that anyone is capable without proper education and awareness.

Of course, I don't think anyone was implying that this is any majority of any group. In fact, I was going to bring up that many of the fastest growing churches are watered down, liberal, "only the good stuff" christianity. This could be seen as a good thing, but is it really honest? Then again, with all the contradictions, who knows what is right?

Didn't you just love the Pat Robertson comment? All those voters can't ask God for help? This guy always seems to remind me what a shit he is when my memory is fading. Wow, this shows how desperate Guiliani must be to get the evangelical vote. If he can shake Pat's hand, the guy who agreed that God had a hand in 9/11, well he should be able to shake Bin Laden's as well.

Wow, it is strange how anything can be viewed as acceptable for kids if it is under the pretense of religion. Talk about not being able to distinguish reality from fairy tales! This is child abuse, especially for girls.

The Tax Code gets more complicated as your wealth increases. Why? Loopholes. Keep it simple? Sounds good to me, not sure about EVERYONE else though. Religious items, things "for the children", for education, media, farming, investment, etc. The arguments will be endless. As for illegal activity - the black market will increase. People will always try to avoid paying taxes and the wealthy are far more innovative than illegal aliens, etc. Well, at least he agrees with me. The article below was specifically about estate tax, which is a DOUBLE tax, but the point is the same. LINK

It should not be called Fair Tax, maybe Efficient Tax, since that would be the only advantage, IF it is true. As with the income tax, I think people with more wealth should be taxed at higher % brackets. That is fair. Bill Gates being taxed at the same % as someone working at McDonald's maked no sense to me. Sure, he pays much more tax, but that is because he makes so much more. He has so much more left over it has no impact on him. Society sets the stage for people to acquire wealth, so the wealthy owe society, in addition to a baseline tax rate. If you want a sales tax, then no tax on food at grocery stores and add a luxury tax. I think this would lower consumption and increase the black market, so I doubt that it would really lower the amount of money for tax collections.

just my opinon, but I think nature is more important on the extremes of the curve. Also, nurture may have more influence in terms of education, which is different than intelligence.

Orsen Well's radio broadcast of War of the Worlds (1938) comes to mind. Not a series, but a one time broadcast. Sorry, not robots! http://davidszondy.com/Radio.htm Liar! by Isaac Asimov A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. So says the First Law of Robotics and it seems a sensible sort of precaution to build into a machine. But how far must a robot go to avoid harming a human being? What will it do? What will it say? What if the robot in question can read minds? If your only exposure to Isaac Asimov's robot stories has been the recent Will Smith action movie antics, then you are in for a pleasant surprise. In fact, this is a neat two for one deal. Our story was not only written by Dr. Asimov, but it is introduced by the legendary sci-fi editor John W. Campbell Jr.. First broadcast on the Mutual Broadcasting System c.1950.

It is good of course to try and educate people, but IMO, the problem in this case isn't some dogma, just sick outcasts who want to make an impact.

Yes, maybe he knows how to lead an 18th century nation. You don't think they had dirty politics in the old days? You assume these guys would be the best candidates today? We tend to look back in history as black and white, instead of the present gray.

IMO, conciousness is your brain. "I have a brain, therefore I am aware of my existence" In regards to possible origins of reincarnation: 1) Man doesn't like to die. 2) Man can observe cycles in nature. 3) Man gets bored, eats special plants and is "enlightened".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages Punitive damages (termed exemplary damages in the United Kingdom) are damages not awarded in order to compensate the plaintiff, but in order to reform or deter the defendant and similar persons from pursuing a course of action such as that which damaged the plaintiff. Punitive damages are often awarded where compensatory damages are deemed an inadequate remedy. They may be rationalized as preventing under-compensation of plaintiffs, allowing redress for undetectable torts and taking some strain away from the criminal justice system.[1] Because they usually compensate the plaintiff in excess of the plaintiff's provable injuries, punitive damages are awarded only in special cases, usually under tort law, where the defendant's conduct was egregiously invidious. Punitive damages cannot generally be awarded in contract disputes. Intentional torts Main article: Intentional tort Intentional torts are any intentional acts that are reasonably foreseeable to cause harm to an individual, and that do so. Intentional torts have several subcategories, including tort(s) against the person, including assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud. Property torts involve any intentional interference with the property rights of the claimant. Those commonly recognized include trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion. Extreme and outrageous conduct The conduct must be heinous and beyond the standards of civilized decency or utterly intolerable in a civilized society. Whether the conduct is illegal does not determine whether it meets this standard. IIED is also known as the tort of "outrage," due to a classic formulation of the standard: the conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to exclaim "Outrageous!" in response. Some general factors that will persuade that the conduct was extreme and outrageous: (1) there was a pattern of conduct, not just an isolated incident; (2) the plaintiff was vulnerable and the defendant knew it; (3) the defendant was in a position of power; (4) racial epithets were used; and (5) the defendant owed the plaintiff a fiduciary duty. Taylor v. Metzger, 706 A.2d 685 (N.J. 1998);GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1999);

You could say the same about rape. I mean sometimes it may not be so bad physically, but the emotional scars are real. I would rather be beat up then be raped myself, so I think the majority of people can understand this as a truth, not just an opinion. With the exception of psychopaths.

Didn't the Copernican model make better predictions than the geocentric model? - i.e Planet orbits, star "orbits". It only needs to be better than the previous model, not "perfect". What was Galileo basing his argument on? If he would have lost the argument, it would have been because he was arguing with people who would not accept his observations. You don't burn people at the stake for incorrect science. You only do this for political reasons, i.e perceived danger to those in power.

With your new found understanding of the islamofascists, who do you want to start killing first? I mean that if we treat our captured enemies well, that tends to shine a light on our side, even for our own troops. This works with soldiers, maybe not with terrorists.

I think your making a joke here, but I will bite anyway. We shouldn't care what those retards think, IMO. As far as sending a message, how we treat our captured enemies sends the clearest message to an honorable foe.

I completely agree with Glider on this one. When I visit a hospital or old folks home, I can see the need for euthanasia. I could even see extending it to depressed people, but that would need to be after much time and effort combating the condition. I know I would like to be able to take myself out under certain conditions, so I cannot deny that to others.

Got a problem with banjos? I said it should be illegal and considered a mental condition. I also consider it un-natural and sick even if the animal is "ready and willing". I have lived on a farm and never had any desire to mess with another animal, but I have had the unpleasant experience of other animals trying to mount me. I let them know pretty quick that I was not "ready and willing". If you hadn't noticed, the world is going to hell in a hand basket in certain areas. They treat humans worse than you could imagine treating animals. So quit with the personal attacks by invoking the nazis of our day.

I do agree with this viewpoint, but I think it should be illegal in the first place. I don't think the freedom of speech is so important that we should allow people to display nooses, burn crosses, burn the flag, display swastikas or protest anywhere they like. I also agree that people should be able to tolerate hate speech, but they should also be able to tolerate alcohol as well. Some have a problem with it and many problems arise when mixed with driving. Speech can be the same way. I don't have all the answers, but I think some obvious rules such as no protests near funerals would not curtail anyone the right to have their say.

Well, this is an interesting thread and it had gotten me to think a little on this issue. I think disgust in having sex with other species is probably genetic, I don't think we would do as well if men were humping animals instead of women, of course in desperate times, some may be tempted? Killing an animal wouldn't be as bad as raping it, just as raping an enemy soldier would be considered immoral while killing him might not be. Killing an animal swiftly is not very painful. I can see where some animals would have pleasure having sex with humans and I cannot imagine them having emotional scars from this experience, so it is hard to argue from the standpoint of the animal in all cases, IMO. So, is it immoral? Maybe not. Is it demented and something to be fixed? I think this is the case. Like sex with a blow-up doll, it isn't a healthy relationship, not even a relationship period. That being the case, overall it seems like a rather benign mental disorder, as long as the animal seems to be enjoying the situation. Unlike homosexuality, this action doesn't promote a healthy relationship with a consenting adult. Can it be seen as another form of masturbation? Well, maybe so, but having another living entity there that cannot respond in any meaningful way just seems to reinforce the idea that sex is a purely selfish act, IMO. So this would not be something we would want everyone to do as a healthy way of living. This is something like a bad drug that we must live with but hopefully keep to a minimum or eliminate if possible. In summary, I think it should be illegal and treated as a mental disorder, but maybe it isn't immoral. The most retarded post I have seen in a long time.

Sorry Moo, should have provided links to save some time. I think someone already mentioned, but drugs like tobacco, cocaine and alcohol started as medicines I think. The history of cocaine is really interesting.

Hydrogen cyanide "Prussian Blue" Used to make a nice blue dye, also used to exterminate Jews. Ironically, may have been instrumental in the beginning of life!