john5746

The strong silent type maybe? Well, plenty of those abound in bars. On the other hand, a female Neanderthal? Would she be the dominating type?

I don't think it should be done. But if it is, they should be recognized as people, not property.

I completely disagree. That's like saying education has no effect on someone. Our language, our education, our culture, much of who "we" are isn't a tangible object. They exist in a tangible object. Beliefs matter. In regards to the op, if the goal is just science for the sake of science, then ethics might be seen as counter-productive, but that's like saying quality assurance is counter-productive. But even in that case, you would have to believe that there would be no backlash against scientific pursuits if there were numerous unethical endeavours within the science community.

Yes, but ethics would effect the probability of the choices you will make gunshot -> death of person person 1: "I shot him cause I like to eat brains" person 2: "I shot him cause he pissed me off" person 3: "I shot him cause he was trying to kill my friend" In all 3 cases, the final result is the death of a person, but I think we can forecast some difference in the future choices from these 3 people. Also, I would argue that #3's family might be damaged from his death, but needs to realize that he was not innocent.

That might work in some states, but this would be more like it in others Asteroids: Another reason I needs me a bigger n' better gun.

There are many stories about vampires, werewolves and mermaids. Ancient people(some current people) believed them to be real.

don't you think our dna would be much different than other apes?

It should be repealed. Founding fathers were wrong about some things and ignorant of many things that we know today. This was one of them.

The US is a large country, so you can't really generalize, but menageriemanor makes some good points.

I don't think this was a mistake. They are basically selling an anti-christian message to a mostly christian audience, so it is being warped. Of course, people should be used to it, since politicians and religious pundits do it all the time.

This is kinda like a mom using the "wait till your dad comes home" to keep a child in line. It might work if the dad does indeed exist, come home and beat the kid from time to time. But, if the dad doesn't even come home, then the child will eventually act as if he doesn't exist. Either way, better for the mom to handle the discipline herself and to instill a method of self discipline in the child, because the child cannot escape itself. We already know that even the strongest believers don't act like god is watching them all the time. They pick their nose, masturbate and fart as if no one is watching them. The bluff loses its potency over time. So my argument is if you we are wishing, better wish for people to be much better parents and truly educate their children then to compensate with myths.

Nothing in atheism suggests seeking forgiveness or doing good works. Maybe she could argue from a humanist position, but still would be hard to say that humanists do more good works than christians, especially given the uncertainty as to what the gods would consider to be good works. I think the argument would be more along the lines that believing in a false god is worse than not believing in any in more religions. Not sure if that is true or not. If you are trying to avoid human suffering in this life, then why not respect the idea of accountability in this life? It would avoid even more suffering, since they would be tied directly to the outcome. No middleman needed. If there really is an eternal afterlife, then murdering someone with the "right" beliefs just sends them to heaven. So murdering someone with the "wrong" beliefs would create the most suffering.

He used hyperbole to make a point, but was still making a point. While I don't think our current problems stem from too much trust in government, we could use less of it when thinking of war and military spending.

Some have such a big one, that they can't remember what they said.

I don't know, in all your stories, seems to me the common thread is white people gone mad. So, seems to me the best solution would be to replace their guns with the jawbone of an ass. That seems to be a better fairy tale than giving a gun to everyone.

"Sucker" - written in Chinese. "Wash your hands" Serious options: We the people No need to lie about who is backing the money, but I am in the camp of not worth the fuss in regards to removing those words. It will be removed in due time.

I wonder who will go first, because it seems like Craig likes to go first and send off a bunch of salvos, usually strawman quotes of his opponent to get them off track. I'm sure he will run away from any specifics regarding his faith as well.

Obviously, guns are the answer. The more plentiful and powerful, the better. Seriously, although in the US it might be hard to imagine, many countries in Europe seem to be doing just fine without it.

Yeah, would be better to say more difficult, but slogans usually go for effect, not Truth. lapierre Yes, but METH is illegal, GUNS are not. Its situational, so trying to do something about illegal guns will bring in lapoop(lapierre) complaining that criminals won't listen to laws and it will be such a burden on regular people.

Well, I would have appreciated women being more forward in my younger days, so I am not arguing against it. But, you really want to ignore biology? Gay people also are fighting for equal rights. Do you expect them to sleep with the opposite sex? Do you expect women to grow a pair, grab their crotch and spit? Women wanting to be treated equitably in the workplace doesn't mean they need to become men.

Do you consider Obama's proposals to be closer to the middle ground or the high mark? I think more will need to be done, but waiting for perfection means doing nothing. I would like to see more concentration on ammunition. Being able to trace it, taxing the shit out of it to pay for all this stuff we need to do to keep innocent people safe and keep up with everyone's mental health status, etc.

They are toys brought by Santa http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Who-knows-Maybe-youll-find-a-Bushmaster-AR-15-under-your-tree-some-frosty-Christmas-morning.html I really don't know what your talking about. The national debate I have seen so far starts with the idea that people should be able to hunt and protect themselves in their homes. I see far more unreasonable arguments from the more guns side.

I'm not a gun expert and don't care to be one. I have at least shot a 30.06 and it would be interesting to try and shoot a round a second and actually be on target. I doubt you will see people with 30.06 and a 100 round drum. But they are effective at killing, as is any gun. I think they would be more effective at taking out a cop or other opponent. Your last statement is a big part of the issue. There seems to be no utility in these things, so why do we need them? Cost benefit analysis. Benefit is fun, cost is lives. We can call them "fun guns" or "small pee-pee widgets" if it makes you feel better. Still want to get rid of them. I do think we need to embrace the gun culture, something like Switzerland. But its hard to expect people to embrace things that have no real purpose.

Fair question. The whole idea is to try and limit gun/clips that maximize carnage in the least time. Kind of the reason machine guns are regulated.

Thanks iNow, wish I had seen that chart, much better. Interesting to me is the Physical science majors losing importance but increasing attendance. I wonder if they attend for the social aspect, but no longer believe. I understand that exposure to different cultures would lead one to question their own more.