The Bear's Key

There's not enough room to put four vote options on the last category, so if you want to vote a "5" for it, just pick both "3" and "2" Also (since there wasn't room), I left out the choice for voting a "1". So if you think it's worth a "1", simply don't vote for a category and it'll be worth a "1". Entry #1. Math... A codified representation of reality having various components that interact systematically to produce definitive outcomes, from which a user can deduce previously unknown information, verify information about reality, and/or descriptively model it. The criteria explained. • Accuracy/longevity. Definition is universal, and timeless, covering any future scenarios we imagine today. • Standalone. It avoided using the word's synonym, antonym, or thesaurus friends. i.e. a) an emotion wasn't defined using a substitute feeling or very related word; b) "hot" wasn't defined as a lack of cold. Also didn't need cheap partner or reference words. i.e. to define "alphabet" it didn't use "letters" or "symbols"; to define "language" it didn't use "words" or "communication". • Brief/challenging. a) Shorter than 50 words, but not too short. -1 point for each 10 words over 40. b) It's also pretty challenging to define in words. i.e. an experience. • Obvious. The definition is clearly for the word "___", it'll rarely get confused for another word. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWill a mod change it to public? Thanks.

There's not enough room to put four vote options on the last category, so if you want to vote a "5" for it, just pick both "3" and "2" Also (since there wasn't room), I left out the choice for voting a "1". So if you think it's worth a "1", simply don't vote for a category and it'll be worth a "1". Entry #2. Photon... A minute body of mass that maintains its velocity and a constant rate of periodic motion. When it collides with a mass it will be either absorbed, reflected, or pass through the object with an altered velocity depending on the form of the mass. The criteria explained. • Accuracy/longevity. Definition is universal, and timeless, covering any future scenarios we imagine today. • Standalone. It avoided using the word's synonym, antonym, or thesaurus friends. i.e. a) an emotion wasn't defined using a substitute feeling or very related word; b) "hot" wasn't defined as a lack of cold. Also didn't need cheap partner or reference words. i.e. to define "alphabet" it didn't use "letters" or "symbols"; to define "language" it didn't use "words" or "communication". • Brief/challenging. a) Shorter than 50 words, but not too short. -1 point for each 10 words over 40. b) It's also pretty challenging to define in words. i.e. an experience. • Obvious. The definition is clearly for the word "___", it'll rarely get confused for another word. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIcefire's entry... Accuracy/longevity. (2) The mass part inaccurate, yet it does have a bit of potential for a universal definition. Standalone. (4) Almost, but it used "constant rate" which sort of gives it away. Brief/challenging. (4) Less than 50 words, although it was fairly close to the 50 words -- but it's definitely challenging, though I didn't subtract points for the "constant rate" bit. Obvious. (3) Good except for the mass a photon doesn't have. Total = 13 (of 20) Nice. I'm probably going to move "challenging" over with "standalone" before the next entry. Continue voting.

So wrong. It's likely the "poor human". Go find us anti-death punishment opponents who lack any sympathy for the murdered person's family and close ones. I'll wait. Perhaps their concern is against something else as well. There are inborn responses many of us have for certain situations, yet are entirely wrong for those situations -- however, others will play on such inborn responses merely for their own benefit, even if we all get screwed in the process. It'd be the equivalent of politicians circulating leaflets telling us to run when encountering a cougar. It might feel right, but it's the wrong move. And I'll wager someone reading this doesn't realize your best chance of living is to stand your ground and possibly fight it. Why don't they realize it? Because their instincts claim otherwise. Same goes with death punishments. It just feels right, but obviously it hasn't worked in all the history of its mass use. So what other reason does the politician have for motivitaing us towards legalizing a death punishment? In line with the spirit of the thread, it could be a religious motivation and power thing. Will you go looking deeper, or fear it? That answer's the real key to thinking for oneself, or the more popular: to be "set free". But places like that exist, however I doubt you'd wanna live there. Or do you want to live in a culture of mass poverty and/or constant strife? Yet the more important question is why must such places be like that, why not civilized? And if that's an inevitable result of such legal practices, might the ones desiring it also want our society to become more like the nations with "old time" justice?

I updated the first post (thanks mooey). Also, please keep in mind its very first sentence. i.e. post the definition of a word that's basically familiar to everyone (non-scientists, youth, adults -- for instance, "marijuana" not "THC"). I've decided to open voting on another thread, in the Sandbox so it doesn't clutter anything Please head over to vote for Icefire's definition. Nope. It'd seem I failed in the "Obvious" category Ok here's a giveaway clue. It's a requirement in school. To others and people lurking: remember to make suggestions if you like this idea and/or wish to participate. I'm thinking of selecting judges rather than having a public vote, if anyone's interested PM me, or if you have comments/suggestions on that post it here.

whoops, please delete.

I'm not entering the contest, just wanted to edit toastywombel's pic to view it without the Star of David look -- resembling the current logo more.

I'll start the voting for Icefire's entry today. Voting ends next Monday, the 22nd. Also, here's a clue to entry #1: its word is the title of a forums section here.

Does any faith even permit it actually? That's the real question. My own *belief system* allows it for personal use -- i.e. done by the hand of another citizen, not law -- but only if they're responsible enough to fully accept the legal consequences of unlawfully killing another person. Then again, it's a belief system that's enhanced by what consistently, regionally, and historically passes the test of reality -- in a level-headed manner. I'll have to disagree. See why below. Notice (in the surrounding passages) how God didn't instruct Moses that a court or government must put them to death. Notice also, if onlookers from the surrounding crowd didn't participate in the kill (by stoning or whatnot), there'd be consequences by God. Which to me sounds as if government is highly disliked in the writings of certain religions -- as if their leaders would rather BE the government. Which in a nutshell sounds like various politics of today. What you quoted is God's instructions to angles, not humans. People aren't given instructions to carry out the death penalty, and especially not for government to do so. QFT. And I think we shouldn't have one until we figure out precisely the reason why that's the case.

Just real quick (got work, can't post again until Monday)... Thanks for participating, Icefire. Good answer, but not quite the word. Also, nice entry. I'm guessing: a photon? If so, you chose a great word. Read on below. Here's some more things to know about the contest. The words to use are generally thought of as impossible to define (i.e. emotions, abstract concepts) -- if the word itself, or a close approximation, or from the same category isn't also part of the definition. Only use only a single word. So for instance, "advanced civilization" wouldn't qualify. Your entry gets a week to be voted on from the time someone guesses it, unless no one did -- in which case you might reword its definition or start giving clues. Number your entries. It'll help keep order. So Icefire's entry is..#2, the next one will be..#3. I'm gonna need a mod to volunteer for editing the OP in the main thread, where I can post links to all the entries. This'll be a simple copy and paste job for the volunteer most of the time. Also, can we move these posts over to the main thread? It'll actually be less of a mess to keep it all in one thread.

ecoli, did you think antiquated laws should be removed? i.e. transeferred to history books. There's always a reasonable solution.* So keeping that in mind -- and of the thieves who profit from bad government and make sure to keep it like that -- might we have any reasonable fixes to the problem? Example... Has any place tried letting citizens vote directly on the salary of elected government officials? A fantastic job -- high salary, earned and deserved. Corrupt job -- gets minimum wage. But a fix might exist for that as well. Amendment to the Constitution that any high emergency law must continue to be voted on every ten years until it doesn't get enough votes, at which point it dies. Might be reasonably functional if done properly(the operative word). Yeah, sure. But perhaps not if while removing it, the government must also declare in a binding oath that the faulty law can't return. *Always. Just visualize the math: the chances of finding it -- usually won't be that easy -- VS the near *zero* chances for lack of trying what's supposedly "impossible". Even lottery odds will go from 1:1,000,000,000 to perhaps 1:100,000,000,000,000 if you don't play (i.e. happening upon a lost winning ticket on the ground)

In a practical world, yes. (or maybe) But not so certain in the political world... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life#Term_controversy Pro-life and pro-choice individuals often use political framing to convey their perspective on the issues and, in some cases, to discredit opposing views. Pro-life advocates tend to use terms such as "unborn baby", "unborn child", or "pre-born child",[39][40] while some pro-choice advocates insist on scientific terminology (often distinguishing between a zygote, a blastula, an embryo, and a fetus, and objecting to "fetus" as a blanket term). Pro-life individuals may also prefer to refer to the pregnant woman as a "mother", while some pro-choice individuals consider this inappropriate, and some in the medical community may see its usage as insensitive and biased in certain narrowly defined contexts.[41]

Don't confuse incompetence for malice. Some people are really ignorant/ naive, unable to consider their actions or foreseeable variables wisely. Yes, incredibly stupid. Kind of like the no whorehouses rule. I can see doing away with new lab-formulated ingredients that are proven harmful and lacking in nutrients, but to a staple of food thousands of years old? Ridiculous. Plus salt is nutriciously critical for health. So what? ...studies the behavior of politicians and government officials as mostly self-interested agents It's not fact, and does say "mostly" anyway. Disagree with lots of it. The part above sounds like a capitalism mantra, of "self-interested" agents who can't possess a true regard for others in a business life. 1,000% agree. What's said and true differs. But I agree to removing -- or at least updating -- laws that don't work. However, you should take a look at how many people on these forums didn't care about removing antiqated laws even if they're no longer enforced. It might tell us something about why bad laws don't go away. You hadn't participated though, so out of curiosity I'd like to know: would you be comfortable if a law you (strongly) wanted repealed had instead remained on the books, and was just technically no longer enforced?

Yeah, definitely. A couple people like your girlfriend and waitforufo seem reasonable enough to consider the particulars in our stance even if we all disagree. So in essence... We're considerate to both mother and the unborn, preferring to leave government out until a trimester most people can agree on. Besides that, most of us likely wouldn't ever consider abortion for ourselves. So we're respectful of people who act differently. But usually it seems those who fancy themselves "pro-life" solely consider the unborn. With a few exceptions as I stated above. Why's it "pro-life" though? I suspect it's crafty politics. 1) A reliable vote-getter, 2) ties in religion, 3) and opponents by default would be viewed as "pro-death". Such labels fit the Right's apparent strategy/pattern of kill three birds with one stone. But law has this in common with science: it defines its own terms so everyone's on the same page. It doesn't matter what everyone or the dictionary thinks, it matters how it's been pre-defined for use in law. As for it being troubling to pro-life advocates, I don't see them opposing/protesting the government's labeling of a corporation as a legal person, via the Supreme Court -- far before the New Deal era laws (which plenty of them do oppose, although it helps life). I think Phi for All meant a natural transition, i.e. to decide whether it's reasonable to even pursue by law, weighed vs advantages/disadvantages, feasibility, real cases before the judge, etc. Opinion. A flawed one at that. Do you feel that if suddenly you learned people didn't have souls then you'd care not one bit for anyone -- or the welfare of strangers? So none of the pro-lifers are for the death penalty or war? Not true, it does. You're thinking of an organism, not life. Also, look at the first citation linked to in Wikipedia's entry: The Seven Pillars of Life, for a clue of how life's not easily defined. That's where you err. Science doesn't know, it merely predicts, describes, and runs tests for consistency (plus high levels of accuracy).

That could be a problem. No one can be on the same page if what everyone's talking about can't be defined or lacks a reasonable standard to perceive it by. In that case, universal healthcare by a public option isn't socialism, as the government doesn't run the industry that builds medicine, equipment, pills, lab coats, all that fun stuff. Ditto on the healthcare point. Few returns for *private* investment. I wasn't talking about benefits to society, just $$ returns for a business to have explored the moon or space before government did. Just to make sure you do realize it's no different for any of us. The healthcare point again Dittoland. Constitution, Article I, Section 8. ...to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States ........ To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers See, there's a loophole. We don't need its removal, but some manner to assure us of ways that government can't abuse that loophole -- i.e. close it to abuses. Isn't blackmail hidden, not in open view? I agree that it'd be a shitty way to run things, but you could provide more specifics of what you're referring to also. Seems both parties are guilty of it. Notice something? Everything you mention is for dangers people know about (not hidden), generally they'll be self-inflicted -- affecting mostly them. It's an issue or responsibility for the state or lower government, and even that part's sketchy. But when citizens in danger by industry/others aren't helped by their local governments, it's when the Federal government steps nationally in to enforce and guarantee our rights. Could be why abusers of industry love the idea of "small government". The industry's likely often more powerful than a local government.

Some proposals... • 1) To help deter favoritism, keep the challengers anonymous until voting's over. • 2) To help deter people voting for their natural biases -- which might occur if people don't want to lend the impression of supporting what they certainly don't -- just include some vote options that in essence say "hey, person X won the debate, however I strongly disagree with their premise". For example, a sample of vote choices (multiple picks)... ° X won (best debater / most convincing arguments) ° Y won (best debater / most convincing arguments) ° tied ° I agree with X ° I agree with Y ° I strongly disagree with X ° I strongly disagree with Y • 3) Format... ° A specified # of posts each. ° You get to highlight up to three items within each of your posts, that opponent must address. Exception: you can't do so on your last post. ° You also can highlight up to three big/extraordinary claims in your opponent's posts, where they failed provide evidence. And you can do so on your last post as well. But if you got the final post and it has such large claims, the opponent gets an extra final post just to highlight those unreferenced claims (i.e. can't post anything else but those highlights).

Don't forget that back in the day, several places around the world in general had minor stirrings toward Democracy as we know it. Our forefathers borrowed some ideas that had already emerged, built on them, and crafted their own bits as well -- so in the U.S. that democratic process sped up. I think it's healthier to view it as a step forward, instead of a one-time revolution and change. Further steps will occur. There were roots in England nearly a hundred years before the U.S. • Bill of Rights in 1689 England And hints/wisps of liberty stirred in the late 1800s Japan. • Freedom and People's Rights Movement in 1870s Japan • The Rights and Duties of Subjects in the 1889 Constitution of Japan. (scroll down to Charter II) Russians in 1905 were demanding (and granted?) the freedom of speech and assembly. In my view, societies evolve naturally towards more justice and liberty for its citizens. Plus a more diverse/widespread access to knowledge seems to facilitate that. It's a key variable likely. So it follows that keeping people in the dark allows for tyranny. Keeping people ignorant has the same effect. i.e. unquestioning. Our system wasn't made to never change, just not to do it on impulse so easily. Why radical change? Just a step forward* *(though a powerful one)

Questions, answers, suggestions, voting, whatever for the thread "Anything can be defined..."

...if we're all familiar with it at least. This is a contest to define the (supposedly) undefinable. Rules. You make up a definition, post it, others guess its word, and it gets voted on -- a week from the time someone guessed it correctly, unless no one did -- in which case you might reword its definition or start giving clues. Only use only a single word. So for instance, "advanced civilization" wouldn't qualify. Points get awarded based on the following criteria.... (1-5 points each) • Accuracy/longevity. Your definition is universal, and it's timeless, covering any future scenarios we imagine today. • Standalone. It avoided using the word's synonym, antonym, or thesaurus friends. i.e. a) an emotion wasn't defined using a substitute feeling or very related word; b) "hot" wasn't defined as a lack of cold. Also didn't need cheap partner or reference words. i.e. to define "alphabet" you didn't use "letters" or "symbols"; to define "language" you didn't use "words" or "communication". • Brief/challenging. a) Shorter than 50 words, but not too short. -1 point for each 10 words over 40. b) It's also extremely challenging to define in words. i.e. an experience. • Obvious. The definition is clearly for the word "___", it'll rarely get confused for another word. Votes get averaged. The first person with a 20 gets to assign one extra point whenever voting from then on. Also, no voting for yourself. Some guidelines... The words to use are generally thought of as impossible to define (i.e. emotions, abstract concepts) -- without using it or a close approximation in the definition. Number your entries. It'll help keep order. So Icefire's entry is..#2, the next one will be..#3. When posting a definition. You have two choices ... 1) post an original entry that you came up with, or 2) piggyback on someone else's. That means you can attempt to improve someone's previous entry, and if you cause it to get a higher score, your name gets included with that entry -- but under it's originator's name. Example. iNow posts a definition, it gets a high score. Later I tweak it some, causing it to get an even higher score. Mr. Skeptic tweaks the changes a bit more, furthering the score. It'll go like so... Definition -- word iNow. 17 Mr. Skeptic. 19. The Bear's Key. 18 The originator's name always goes first -- unless their score wasn't at least a 10. Then piggybackers get listed by score from lowest to highest. Entry #1. (by me) The definition... A codified representation of reality having various components that interact systematically to produce definitive outcomes, from which a user can deduce previously unknown information, verify information about reality, and/or descriptively model it. The word is ___? I'll be using post #3 for linking to the definitions and winning entries. [/noparse]

A debate needs some kind of format rules, but kept simple. And people can vote both on substance and how well the format's adhered to by each contestant. Otherwise it still resembles a normal thread back-and-forth.

So far it just seems like normal threads without the extra people. It needs some kind of quality filter: like rather than linking to an entire webpage, contestants are graded on whether they quoted a relevant piece. Also, I see opinions a lot more than should be in a debate. And why not points graded for a nice structure of citations as well?

It doesn't have to be formal in the sense of being officially moderated -- even though it'd gain quality, it'd also be impractical. Maybe develop a points system to vote on: How effectively did one properly address legitimate questions / intellectual honesty (1-5 points). Remain on topic or at least relevant to the discussion? (1-5 points). Coherent arguments, its various pieces flow together into a solid whole (1-5 points). I think a good debate takes effort and should have a yardstick for quality, so one side's time doesn't get or feel wasted. People can vote on that yardstick of quality. The challengers should be revealed unless they opt not to be -- which is just as cool.

I recommend it be done without anyone knowing the identities of debaters until after the vote. Say you want to open a debate, contact your opponent by PM, agree to having it and then each send a PM to Cap'n Redbeard, who sets it up. Posts would be anonymous to the rest of us, submitted privately, then it's simply a matter of copy and paste (by the mod) onto the debate thread. Now people are voting on substance, rather than a debater's popularity or known reputation. Maybe by Ahmadinejad, similar others.

mooey just brought up a good point. There is such a decision, more or less, within the medical literature. The fetus is not considered human life until the second trimester; in countries where this debate is obsolete (in the many countries in Europe, for instance), abortion is legal up to the end of the second trimester. Perhaps it's wise to follow the medical literature -- especially with its long history in practicing them and when its guidleines seem reasonably balanced enough -- in unreconcilable situations where debates by outsiders can't agree on a final determination.

I remember areas in the U.S. certainly were like that described by ajb, it has improved a bit though perhaps not entirely. We did have people start fights being macho or claiming a guy has a staring problem. Could it have more to do with a cultural and psychological immaturity? Might sections of the UK also be going through the "bully mentality" stages frequently in the U.S.'s near past? Maybe (to both). Yet it seems the reality is more that for certain areas, sometimes it'll happen as a cycle -- meaning it's like a fad of behavior that last only a period of time. Also, it's a numbers game. I used to walk a lot between cities (to and fro) and once got a rock or something tossed at me by a passing car. It stung. And it was hard not to take personally. However, now looking back I can imagine a few pranksters laughing off their mischief and not seriously considering the potential harm. The areas in the U.S. that I spoke of earlier also had incidences of kids dropping rocks on cars from bridges, and hurling snowballs or ice at passing vehicles, etc. Still happens I bet. @ajb Never take it personally or as a sign of criminal numbers. Likely any spurt you experience is a mathematical probability. i.e. maybe you happened to win the trouble lottery. But even so, you're good at math: figure out the ratio of hours and days where nothing happens to the times where you're the victim of mischief and/or inappropriate grabs. Plus for a more realistic grasp of just how commonly such incidences occur where you live, simply ask neighbors/coworkers -- did they get hit by any objects/milkshakes tossed from a car, and when? As for the boy shot around where you live, could've been a vengeance due to a betrayal, cheating with a friend's spouse, any number of emotional responses. Happened to someone I know, otherwise peaceful, and the local media changed facts to make him into a street brute, and it was then I learned many of the newspaper's crime stories I read before were just that -- stories. Not reports. Good so far. Either improperly worded, or most of it's bunk. Perhaps you meant to say...just walk like you belong in the environment -- it doesn't bother, worry, or deter you. Chin up, movements sure. ajb's not to blame, obviously. However, pinpointing the manners a victim can avoid being a target isn't the same as blaming them, and it's not the same as forgiving the abusers. If you go openly wearing a ton of gold necklaces in a desperate area of town, for example, plus you're out alone without communication -- then you're not being sensible. In truth, it's practically reckless of you. But even in that circumstance you're not guaranteed to encounter trouble, just merely an increased chance of it. Also beware the chavs having a gun, they ARE allowed to carry a gun there Well more seriously, the chavs have been (lawfully) allowed to carry a gun

btw, I wholeheartedly commend the last two statements by Dudde and mooeypoo. Quoted for truth (in spirit). On earlier posts...bacteria, roaches, and such examples are irrelevant, they won't become living humans. Now, as to whether they're a person in the womb, it's fairly simple and obvious when you consider it more thoughfully. Has any culture now or ever listed the unborn among the population, or in census records? To do so would require names immediately on knowledge of pregnancy, a burial ceremony for miscarriages and/or a death certificate, in modern times a National ID # for the unborn, and being a legitimate dependent for parents to claim in household taxes. To name a few examples. Thus, instead of a futile attempt to legally define when an unborn "person" begins life, wouldn't it be more realistic/constructive for people to agree on the stage of growth where abortion becomes more of a no-no?