john5746

Just trying to present the more extreme example. Not sure they would handle clean cut, professor looking black people any differently. I guess I should say 4 students that look like they are in a gang. What difference if they happen to belong to a gang? You should punish based on the infraction, not on looks or grades, etc. In light of recent events - do you know how many people die from drunk drivers every year? Also, you assume alot in the second situation. A guy grabbing a girl's breast doesn't automatically make him a sex offender. I feel the same way, but we are biased when it involves our children. The best situation would be to have the police come and take the kids to the jail and make them think they are going to stay in there, then let them off. But, I know what I would do with my kids, not sure about others. So, in general I say it is better to error on being too tough.

They should be punished as anyone else would be punished. If someone brings a BB gun to school or a boy grabs a girl's breast, then they take it to the police. If it had been four black kids from a gang, they would be in jail now.

That is what I said, the instant messages were not known until recently. I think more action was needed based on the emails, but I don't know what the current protocol demands. That is what needs to be discussed and changed if needed, IMO. There will always be rumors and complaints swirling around. There should be guidelines as to the action required for certain offences. If it isn't followed, then you chop off heads, otherwise fix the guidelines. I agree with you that if it is something as obvious as the IM's, then that requires the obvious action - police. Anything less is a cover up or stupidity.

I speed occasionally when I drive. Does that mean I am too immature to be married? Drinking to get drunk is immature at any age. I did it when I was young and I may do it again in the future. I can do immature things sometimes, but that doesn't define me as completely immature.

The instant messages didn't crop up until this week. The tame by comparison emails were the ones originally discussed. I think they need to be discussing what should be done in the future for such actions, instead of trying to make this a witch hunt.

I enjoy sharing and debating my opinions on SFN. I enjoy reading diverse opinions from intelligent people without the PC expected in face to face discussions. I think having an open mind and willingness to expand horizons is paramount. Having these discussions has had an impact on my views, more than I probably realize. I feel more comfortable calling myself an atheist while having a deeper appreciation of faith. I have faith in myself and my family.

We still need manufacturing though. It may be highly automated, with educated people running the machines, etc. I don't think we can just count each other's money or heal each other and expect GDP to increase. Europe and the US?

http://www.ngmti.org/ IMO, I think the loss of manufacturing will result in the erosion of the middle class. We are exporting raw goods to China, and they add value to these resources to sell back to us. Since some of this is done through American corporations, stock holders gain wealth, but everyone else loses. Eventually, the middle class will not be able to afford the goods and services and there goes the ballgame.

I enjoyed "The End of Faith" and will read more of Harris. I never viewed moderation as being a cover for extremism, it is a valid argument. I understand his demand for evidence in civil discourse, but can people not have a hunch or feeling? If I am proud of my country or heritage, do I need evidence to support it or am I culpable in any wrongdoing my country does? He does have a good argument that supporting a book with intolerant views leaves a chance that those views can arise with devastating results in the hands of fundamentalists. On the other hand, terrible views can arise from anywhere, so not having any book can be equally dangerous. I am not convinced by his arguments, but I will read on.

Yeah, I and my kids had fun with this after watching mythbusters. I agree the testing method was bull, the coating clearly was the problem. The explanation makes sense - allowing larger surface area exposure. I found that diet coke with aspartame reacted the best. Sugar and other artificial sweetners not as good.

We use grafting and we are inserting jellyfish genes into other animals. I am sure we will figure a smarter way to design than trial and error. If we will be able to figure it out, I am sure a God like intelligence would have done so as well.

You would have to build a good fence, because animals, including humans would be wallowing in them all the time!

He has vison and expresses it well. He proved himself a leader with the Republican congress, but he would keep the parties devided, IMO.

Speaking for myself of course, I find extreme discomfort a downer. If you find this enjoyable or even bearable, you may have a good career with the makers of JackAss.

To me atheism suffers from the same bad press that the extremists create as the religions do. I am an atheist, but have no problem with In God We Trust on money, prayer in school, 10 commandments, etc. I am tolerant enought to accept the term God, but I dislike Jesus, Mohammed, Buddah, etc used because this is a specific religion. So, just as the militant islamists, or the abortion clinic bombers, so we have the whiny atheists that spend all their time trying to remove God from everywhere so their feelings aren't hurt. I understand the bigotry towards atheism, but we don't need to respond to the nth degree because of that. Minorities should be at least as tolerant of the majority as they expect to be tolerated. Edit - OOps, not trying to flame, doG. Not calling you whiny, just the pursuit at all costs approach of some atheists.

I agree with you completely, except the part above: creationism isn't a scientific theory.

http://www.americanfastener.com/fasteners/machine.asp I think these tolerances are far larger than the molecular level. It seems that variation or "mistakes" happen naturally. We have to go through considerable effort to minimize it. So, if we were to find a species where all the life forms had identical DNA, both past and present, that would seem more intelligence driven then all the diversity we see in nature, IMO. Yes, we know hammer manufacturing isn't biological, but it does have variations. Some hammers are larger than others, some are thinner than others, some are longer than others. Nevertheless, it is easy to see that if they were selected based on usage and then used as a blueprint to produce more hammers, you would have very different tools after some time. I don't want to beat this idea to death, just seems that variation is natural in processes. Intelligence would have been required to maintain that first living goo exactly the same as it was when life on earth began.

I think we need to play good cop bad cop with this guy. In 2012, we tell him that if they don't stop their nuclear program, Bush will be elected again and he will wipe them off the map if he thinks they have WMD - and we know what that means!

Yeah, I think people are going to have to accept that there will be a different mindset when talking about religion/philosophy. If the goal is to have less Admin work, then the rules should be more lax, but the punishment more severe. Punishment would be given equally to flamers and those who counter-flame, to avoid excessive chain posts. And of course, all belief systems can be attacked, except Islam Just kidding.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1215/p21s01-coop.html This article provides some possible answers to the costs. As far as being bad, well you can get the best medicines and surgery in the US, but prevention is non-existent. Americans have unhealthy lifestyles, so they pop more pills and have more surgeries, which make a good living for some people, but doesn't result in healthier people. I think the most cost effective thing would be to get Americans exercising, somehow.

I am afraid we will have to change at the genetic level before this "singularity" works. Of course, by then we probably will have been monkeying with our genes and/or making artificial intelligent agents to replace us. We are just animals. You take an animal and provide everything it needs, it eventually forgets how to provide for itself. Better to teach it how to provide for itself. A safety net is required, especially for the children of the poor, but the goal is not to provide them with everything to be middle class. We should expect some hardships when asking for handouts. If I ever get very sick, I don't expect to live as well as I do now, heck I don't even expect that when I retire. I just hope that basic needs would be met, otherwise give me a gun.

Yeah, I don't think Jefferson was ever on the front lines getting shot at. As long as you have a democracy, I don't see the need for the population to have arms. If we need arms to scare the government, then we need some nukes.

In google advanced search, you can also filter by Domain, so you can specify .org, etc. http://www.dukemednews.duke.edu/news/article.php?id=9592 There is one link. Duke is a well respected University.

Manufacturing has variation above the molecular level, but of course, you won't get a sledge hammer from a normal hammer line. Humans do seem to be obsessed with fighting variation, which seems to be the natural order. So, if you see life with no variation, exact replicas, maybe that is a sign of intelligent design, or manufacture?

Maybe communist? Oh, they are all atheist, almost forgot.