Pangloss

Damn you Sisyphus!!! (shakes fist vigorously) Hehe, grats man, that rocks.

I'm actually pretty proud of this subforum for the way its working with Scrappy. The Reported Posts subforum is full of Scrappy reports, but everyone can relax. He's received some infractions and will likely receive more, not for his opinion, but for repeating logical fallacies and trolling. Meanwhile his POV is being (more or less) respected and he's being allowed to state his opinion. When he puts up a flawed argument, it gets pointed out quickly and doesn't get to stand. Exactly how it should be -- applause! I want to point out that Scrappy has been respectful of other people's opinions and does not generally attack people. I believe he can be a valuable contributor to discussions here if he'll back off on the logical fallacies and perhaps be more acknowledging when his reasoning is unsuccessful. I think we all know how hard it is when you feel like you're all alone and under fire -- let's keep that in mind, eh? Good dissent is a valuable thing that raises the quality of debate. The goal should be preserving and building that, whenever possible. Let's see if we can do that here.

You and me both. I wish I were a first-time buyer -- those people are making out like bandits right now.

I know a lot of kids who read LOTR after they finished HP.

BTW, the Wagnerian Ring Cycle is only four hours longer than the extended edition of Peter Jackson's Ring Cycle. Hint, hint.

What, because of the stock market? Weren't we just saying a couple of months ago that it's not an accurate barometer of economic policy? (grin)

A thoughtful and interesting post. Thanks Saryctos.

I respect your opinion on it. Just to clarify my opinion (that you were replying to), though, I wasn't advocating a pure-capitalist approach, but rather a mixed approach. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Just speaking for myself, I don't advocate that anybody deserves health care. It comes at a cost, and nobody deserves something that only comes at another person's expense. I may support that expense, because I feel it's an investment that also benefits me, or because I think it's worth it on some moral level to support those who can't support themselves, but not because I think they deserve it.

It is, and private institutions aren't (generally) allowed to discriminate either, and there is a private thing of value there (to some people). But religious institutions are allowed to discriminate, or Catholic churches wouldn't be able to deny membership to non-Catholics, etc -- if you don't follow their rules, you can't get in, and this is tolerated. Boy Scouts don't get this exception, for example, or formerly all-white country clubs, etc. But churches do. (shrug) Now if you want to talk about challenging that exception, certainly you can do that. I imagine you'd find a lot of support for that argument here. But two wrongs don't make a right. This exception doesn't get YOUR foot in the door, any more than it allows someone to put up "white" and "non-white" drinking fountains.

Churches are never required by law to marry people, and they can already pick and choose whom they will perform ceremonies for. Try and get married in a Catholic church if you're Jewish and see what happens. Or for that matter Catholic and divorced. Nor does the religious ceremony have any legal standing. You're married when you sign your marriage license with the state, not when the priest says "you may kiss the bride". You should acknowledge that this point has failed.

This thread is now on 24 Hour Suicide Watch. The thread starter has failed or is failing to support their position, has not managed the thread direction in a manner which supports its purpose, or is actively encouraging a disorderly discussion. The thread starter must bring the thread under control in order for the thread to stay open. Alternatively, there are more reportable posts breaching the SFN Rules in this thread than there are non-reportable posts, and all participants are expected to improve their level of input if this thread is to remain open. If the thread does not turn into a productive and rational discussion within 24 hours of this post, then it will be closed without any consideration of the moderation policy. All participants are responsible for helping to bring the thread back on track. This post is a standard text set by SFN policy.

One could say the same thing about a socialistic approach.

I think someone mentioned Berkshire-Hathaway's AAA rating earlier in this thread. I happened to catch a news bit a few minutes ago that they lost that rating today. http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0863300420090409

It's an EFF opinion piece. I think the book is still out on what the Obama administration's overall policy will be in this area. He's no doubt feeling the same pressures as previous administrations, and having to make some tough calls. Let's see what happens, but certainly there's nothing wrong with telling him what we think on the matter.

Why not? How does this make my ten-year marriage to my wife anything less than what it is? (I mean, assuming she never finds out about the lamp post!) (grin)

ROFL! Funniest post of the week. I agree with bascule and Obama on this one, but I enjoyed the humor. I understand the argument TBK is making about the slippery slope here, and it's a valid concern, but intelligent people are perfectly capable of drawing distinctions and weighing benefits versus potential problems on a case by case basis. This strikes me as a good idea.

I could have been clearer: It's not about protecting human-owned land within the Everglades. This was in response to your point about excessive regulation hindering rural development.

QFT. One of them may ultimately be the assumption that Obama will eliminate nuclear weapons. His statements are exactly the same as the kinds of statements made by Ronald Reagan in the mid 1980s, wishing and hoping for a world where blah blah blah, while behind his hand saying that under no circumstances would we be the ones left without a chair when the music stops.

Separated from this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39735 This thread is about the analogy of Gun Control with regard to nuclear disarmament, per iNow's quote, which I think is one that you hear a lot. Let's focus on that. Comments about nuclear disarmament in general should probably go in the other thread. Thanks.

Ok, I went ahead and copied it. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39753 Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, there, it just seems like it has the potential to somewhat sidetrack this thread. Thanks.

Okay, even I have to put my foot down on that potential topic shift. (grin) Let's not stray into confirmation of the analogies with gun control, please. I think we all agree that arguing whether that analogy is fully accurate tells us very little about the efficacy of nuclear armament control. (Not that I necessarily disagree with the analogy or even the response.)

I don't think that bit about whether people have watched the video is advancing the discussion. Maybe you should post some references from web sites when appropriate instead. It might help spur further discussion along the lines that you're looking for. That sort of thing tends to rub people the wrong way and puts a bookend on the exchange rather than promote more investigation of the possibilities. This would be a good place to start: Did they actually go beyond singular cases of people who ran out of money and actually show statistical analysis of how many people that's happening too, what percentage of the population that is, how much it costs the system, etc?

Yes, and then it collapsed miserably under the weight of inefficiency and inability to predict demand. The planned economy was a spectacular failure and one of the main reasons for the USSR's demise. The problem with a completely planned economy is that it's a bit like sorcery. You try to predict where all the needs will be and respond to them in an appropriate and timely fashion, but you've thrown away the most important data input you normally have (the impact of demand on price at market) and you keep getting distracted by social priorities that seem to run counter to what's actually needed. It might work on a small scale, but an economy on the scale of major nations is just too vast to do that with effectively. This is the power of a mixed economy -- exhibiting some degree of control over supply while retaining the important information input of demand.

There was apparently a very productive meeting between the US and Russia at the G20 meeting, resulting in an agreement to reduce the arsenal, sign a new reduction agreement, and move forward on warhead destruction. There was also progress on getting Russia's assistance (real assistance) in dealing with Iran and North Korea, probably at a cost of expensive and unnecessary missile defense in Europe. Win, win, win.

A perfect example of why safety nets are a good idea. I'm not only okay with my money (that was taken from me by force) being spent to help people who are down on their luck but who are otherwise perfectly capable and industrious people, I insist on it. Just speaking for myself, of course, but it's only the concept of automatic, assumed benefits, and the idea that this is a moral good (without a moral cost), that I actually object to. Modern society in a nutshell: Robbing Peter to pay Paul is okay so long as it also gives Peter a tangible benefit that he could not otherwise obtain. You chart a course that fixes costs and monitors/regulates expenses so that the insurance industry can't double the federal budget every five years through a massive new entitlement program that my congressman can't even touch, and I'll not only be on board, I'll be standing on the caboose and waving the signal flag.