> They gave secular reasons for banning polygamy when > banning it in your native US.
Who is "they?" Voters are generally quick to say they are motivated by religion. Politicians long ago learned the arts of sophistry, evasion, and obfuscation But the politician-speak is often a blatantly obvious veneer.
Take polygamy in the US. The law didn't have much to say about polygamy until the Morill Anti-Bigamy Act in 1862, a 3 section law whose section 2 targeted the mormon church by name, and section 3 which had nothing to do with bigamy and could only have applied to the territory claimed by the mormon church.
It seems clear this law was against the mormon church as much as it was against polygamy. When the law made its way to the supreme court, the only rationale supporting the ban was that polygamy was an (apparently capital) "offense against society" in England and the States (even if accepted "among the northern and western nations of Europe" and " Asiatic and of African people" .
I guess you can call that secular, but I call it rhetorical, selective, and unsupported.
Offending society is not banned in the Constitution. If society were never offended, we'd still be hanged for working on Sundays.
> the reasons of society banning polygamy There's not just one "society." If we don't share the same first language, probably we don't share the same first culture, either.
So maybe there are secular reasons for banning polygamy in your society, but in my native US, marriage law has historically been based on views held by the majority religions.
Our marriage ceremony itself is generally a religious rite, conducted by clergy instead of government officials.
It's curious that in a country which prides itself on religious freedom, we criminalize polygamous religious behavior.
It makes this American wonder: If we have restrictions on who we can legally bond with, what is "freedom" for?
>The reason it is banned is not because of some religion Citation needed
> it is because polygamy can and historically has put > women in a "bad contract" By "polygamy" you refer to "polygyny" - one man, multiple wives. There is another form called "polyandry" where one woman marries multiple men (often brothers, "fraternal polyandry").
So in polyandry, would you say that one woman has more power than her husbands? Or could perhaps the dynamic wind up being that she is a lonely servant to a household of men?
Being outnumbered is not the same as being empowered.
> I don't see why the blind or any other group should escape that harshness.
They don't escape it.
That society and current law have some compassion for some groups could mean we're on our way to having compassion for more groups. The LG part of the LGBT world seems to be slowly gaining some acceptance, perhaps the T part will also increasingly benefit from societal attitude shifts.
And blind programmers do put forth effort to create applications, for sighted and not.
Well, that's the real trick, isn't it? Who enforces the enforcers?
In the USA, the Legislature is supposed to supervise the Executive.
The last time enforcement happened, Nixon was President.
The next time it was attempted was when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and a Democrat president committed the "high crime" of lying about an extramarital affair. Basically the "separation of powers" the framers crafted has degenerated into Democrats vs Republicans.
Enforcing laws this way is what we call "selective enforcement," and it is antithetical to the Rule of Law.
In Mexico, the system is more like narcos against narcos, with a few brave martyrs-to-be tilting against the windmills of evil.
I think eHow is a scraper site. I've often found their articles to match verbatim posts from sites dedicated to the topic at hand. Just yesterday I saw the identical recipe for baking mix on eHow and allrecipes.com.
What does "genuine" even mean? Couldn't a machine be programmed to reach out affectionately when it's neurons are bathed in oxytocin, like we do? Couldn't they be programmed to release oxytocin upon sensing certain stimuli?
I think maybe the only inherent difference between biological organisms and robots is sexual reproduction.
Although I'm not sure they cede to who they deem powerful, more like who they accept as an authority (translation: somebody who says what they like to hear).
QOTD: "No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin
There are pseudo-intellectuals, and then there are anti-intellectuals. You know, the people who make hasty generalizations, talk to stereotypes, and defend what is against their own interests with play yard tactics like name-calling and ordering others to go live somewhere else.
It seems every 4-8 years a new 20 year plan is given to NASA that may or may not have anything to do with the last 20 year plan. Between politics and NASA's own bureacracy, it seems that the US manned space program is stalled. Thank goodness we still have JPL and its hardy unmanned probes.
While we are getting rides from Russia to install experiments from the EU and Japan, perhaps our private sector will advance enough to pick up where NASA left off. Here's to you, Burt Rutan.
I'll give you that Bush was more tolerant than Mugabe, for whatever that is worth. But if you think there were "no consequences" and nobody got arrested you're mistaken.
Slashdot Mirror
> They gave secular reasons for banning polygamy when
> banning it in your native US.
Who is "they?" Voters are generally quick to say they are motivated by religion. Politicians long ago learned the arts of sophistry, evasion, and obfuscation But the politician-speak is often a blatantly obvious veneer.
Take polygamy in the US. The law didn't have much to say about polygamy until the Morill Anti-Bigamy Act in 1862, a 3 section law whose section 2 targeted the mormon church by name, and section 3 which had nothing to do with bigamy and could only have applied to the territory claimed by the mormon church.
It seems clear this law was against the mormon church as much as it was against polygamy. When the law made its way to the supreme court, the only rationale supporting the ban was that polygamy was an (apparently capital) "offense against society" in England and the States (even if accepted "among the northern and western nations of Europe" and " Asiatic and of African people" .
I guess you can call that secular, but I call it rhetorical, selective, and unsupported.
Offending society is not banned in the Constitution. If society were never offended, we'd still be hanged for working on Sundays.
> the reasons of society banning polygamy
There's not just one "society." If we don't share the same first language, probably we don't share the same first culture, either.
So maybe there are secular reasons for banning polygamy in your society, but in my native US, marriage law has historically been based on views held by the majority religions.
Our marriage ceremony itself is generally a religious rite, conducted by clergy instead of government officials.
It's curious that in a country which prides itself on religious freedom, we criminalize polygamous religious behavior.
It makes this American wonder: If we have restrictions on who we can legally bond with, what is "freedom" for?
>The reason it is banned is not because of some religion
Citation needed
> it is because polygamy can and historically has put
> women in a "bad contract"
By "polygamy" you refer to "polygyny" - one man, multiple wives. There is another form called "polyandry" where one woman marries multiple men (often brothers, "fraternal polyandry").
So in polyandry, would you say that one woman has more power than her husbands? Or could perhaps the dynamic wind up being that she is a lonely servant to a household of men?
Being outnumbered is not the same as being empowered.
No, it's a perfectly valid question.
Yes I have. Now she beats me.
Sounds like the bottle is more suitable for human consumption than its contents.
> I don't see why the blind or any other group should escape that harshness.
They don't escape it.
That society and current law have some compassion for some groups could mean we're on our way to having compassion for more groups. The LG part of the LGBT world seems to be slowly gaining some acceptance, perhaps the T part will also increasingly benefit from societal attitude shifts.
And blind programmers do put forth effort to create applications, for sighted and not.
> bring more martyrs
So you want the peaceful law-abiding Mexicans to step more firmly in the line of fire to kill the "black-hat" Mexicans we buy from?
This is a problem the US created. We made drug possession a crime, we buy the drugs, and we extort drug enforcement from the Mexican government.
How will escalating the Mexican bloodshed into a full-on civil war improve things?
Why do you call him a "dumbass"?
His comments are reasonable and he backs them up with documented evidence. I don't understand the disrespect.
"and you enforce that"
Well, that's the real trick, isn't it? Who enforces the enforcers?
In the USA, the Legislature is supposed to supervise the Executive.
The last time enforcement happened, Nixon was President.
The next time it was attempted was when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and a Democrat president committed the "high crime" of lying about an extramarital affair. Basically the "separation of powers" the framers crafted has degenerated into Democrats vs Republicans.
Enforcing laws this way is what we call "selective enforcement," and it is antithetical to the Rule of Law.
In Mexico, the system is more like narcos against narcos, with a few brave martyrs-to-be tilting against the windmills of evil.
Great point.
I'd mod you up, but I want to make the counter-point that it might be preferable to legalize drugs than impose a police state on the populace.
> Don't waste your time stopping it, use that time to
> get protection from abuse into law.
You appear to believe that both:
a) it is possible to get populist legislation enacted
b) it is not possible for government to break the law.
Your plan fails on both counts. At least in Mexico and the USA.
Stardust was a good flick. Everything a movie should be - comedy, drama, action, mystery, character growth. And babes.
I was hoping they re-discovered how to split the beer atom.
"the case has to pass a sniff test" is fine by me.
But just "making things harder" usually unbalances the playing field, so those with substantial resources could play and the less fortunate could not.
Why pick on the plaintiff? Aren't defendants often guilty?
The problem is not frivolous lawsuits, it's frivolous juries that come from a frivolous citizenry.
I think eHow is a scraper site. I've often found their articles to match verbatim posts from sites dedicated to the topic at hand. Just yesterday I saw the identical recipe for baking mix on eHow and allrecipes.com.
http://allrecipes.com//Recipe/biscuit-baking-mix/Detail.aspx
http://www.ehow.com/how_4915472_baking-mix-like-bisquick.html
What does "genuine" even mean? Couldn't a machine be programmed to reach out affectionately when it's neurons are bathed in oxytocin, like we do? Couldn't they be programmed to release oxytocin upon sensing certain stimuli?
I think maybe the only inherent difference between biological organisms and robots is sexual reproduction.
No wonder Addison Wesley did such a lousy promotional job.
I think "sex change" qualifies as "modifying something to function in ways not facilitated by the designer."
Unless, of course, there is an Intelligent Designer who facilitates sex changes. It could happen.
I wish I hadn't just used up my mod points.
Although I'm not sure they cede to who they deem powerful, more like who they accept as an authority (translation: somebody who says what they like to hear).
QOTD: "No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin
There are pseudo-intellectuals, and then there are anti-intellectuals. You know, the people who make hasty generalizations, talk to stereotypes, and defend what is against their own interests with play yard tactics like name-calling and ordering others to go live somewhere else.
The law you want already exists. Congress is in charge of NASA.
But Congress can barely manage their own cafeteria.
Laws often originate with either a lobbyist or POTUS.
If only we knew what comes next.
It seems every 4-8 years a new 20 year plan is given to NASA that may or may not have anything to do with the last 20 year plan. Between politics and NASA's own bureacracy, it seems that the US manned space program is stalled. Thank goodness we still have JPL and its hardy unmanned probes.
While we are getting rides from Russia to install experiments from the EU and Japan, perhaps our private sector will advance enough to pick up where NASA left off. Here's to you, Burt Rutan.
I'll give you that Bush was more tolerant than Mugabe, for whatever that is worth. But if you think there were "no consequences" and nobody got arrested you're mistaken.
http://www.mountainx.com/news/2007/activist_arrested_after_displaying_impeach_bush_cheney_sign_on_overpass
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=9167
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2927369
http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx081607
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6702
http://warisacrime.org/node/30068
I think that publicly trying to overthrow your government might have consequences, whatever the forum.