If you assume any sort of liquid core during the planet's history, then the heaviest masses would move toward equilibrium. That would tend to be at the center, since moving away from the center would usually be moving against more mass (and more gravity) than what it would be moving toward.
Unfortunately, people on this site that specializes in technology, don't actually believe that generational spaceships are possible. Either now or in all of our future timeframe.
I tried to make a similar argument about 2 months ago, and got nothing but grief for postulating such an idea.
I thought people were allowed to have their own beliefs in this country without others attacking them for it.
I had typed
Aren't people allowed to have their own beliefs in this country without others attacking them for it?
would that be a 'rhetorical question'? That was the spirit my statement was meant as.
As for now using the term 'rhetorical' for my statement, it is in the sense of either of these definitions:
language that is intended to influence people and that may not be honest or reasonable
the art or skill of speaking or writing formally and effectively especially as a way to persuade or influence people
Apparently it was a clumsy attempt.
Yes, I admit my sentence was not "honest or reasonable", because I do realize the First Amendment gives Nimey the right to speak his mind. As my next sentence pointed out, I simply don't agree with attacking people just because they have different beliefs than I do. I could have phrased that as "I don't believe in ad hominem attacks," because that is all that Nimey's post was. It doesn't matter if I agree with Nimey's views or not, I don't think that is the correct way to argue against someone's views.
Sorry I said "rhetorical question" when I meant "rhetorical statement". The phrase "It was a rhetorical question." is so common, that is how I accidentally typed it. If I started the line with "Aren't people allowed...", would it have made a difference in how people replied to it? Doubtful. It isn't worth spending more time on that point.
I still don't see outright evil here, either in supporting one's favored political groups, or in groups that advocate things I disagree with. I don't see where the harm you mention comes in, since I doubt he wants to lynch blacks or stone homosexuals. Gay marriage is a false equivalency in my mind, since marriage has almost always been a religious institution, so I think the government should have no say in it anyway. A century ago my marriage would not have been legal in some states, because my wife isn't white. If the government wants to restrict marriage, the correct response is to get marriage away from government. Which is what I have been saying since the 1980s.
That being said, someone advocating for 'traditional marriage' is not evil, and they are not hoping to harm gays. They have their beliefs, probably based on their religion, and they have the right to those beliefs. The same way the polygamists believe they have the right to marry multiple women. As long as they are all consenting adults, I don't have a problem with it. And I think that will be legal in this country soon enough, since it logically follows on the gay marriage argument. I find it ironic that some supporters of marriage equality react in horror that argument, as if multiple spouses is so unnatural.
Finally, why am I "almost certainly a sock puppet"? Just because I don't believe in attacking people simply for beliefs I don't share? Because I used a rhetorical device in my first post, assuming more people would catch it? Because I am not shocked and horrified that some people have a tribal mentality? Or just because I actually respond to posts by giving my views on subjects rather than apologizing for them?
I agree that calling out someone for their views is fine. I just didn't like the sense of "Don't listen to this guy, because I don't agree with him," that Nimey's post displayed. I would rather discuss someone's views, than shut them down. I guess I did assume the rhetorical nature of my statement would be more obvious to everyone.
As for conservative vs. liberal, I realize my posts overall are more conservative. But I think it is more in the "Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone" style, not the "Everyone must go to church or face eternal damnation," style. Maybe I have to work on balancing my liberal side a bit more.
As for Democrats being right-wing, what is it (other than being beholden to corporate campaign contributions) that makes you say that? The Democrat party is for abortion, gay rights, universal health care, welfare, social services, and unions, among other liberal causes. In your opinion, what makes them right wing?
You are wrong. He was specifically not attacking me because of my simple rhetorical phrase. He was attacking me because he thinks that I don't agree with his views, or he thinks I agree with the views of the person he originally attacked.
He even says so:
It's amazing, isn't it, just how many conservative victims are on/. these days. Bonus points for whining about someone not tolerating your intolerance, and for whining about it in an intolerant way.
He assumes I am a conservative, and that I have the same intolerance as the OP. He is wrong on both counts.
I can see how it appears that he is attacking my specific phrase, but he showed his true intentions soon enough.
First, as I have stated a few times above, it was rhetorical.
Second, supporting someone's right to their own beliefs does not mean I share those beliefs.
Third, Nimey is the one who wished to take away someone's right to Free Speech. As would you. Which means you would only fight as far as is convenient, which is probably where it is too far past the couch to reach the remote and bag of Cheetos.
You may be surprised to learn I am not conservative. Let me enlighten you a bit:
I am not religious. I don't believe the Bible or Koran or Vedas are divinely inspired. If all men could live in peace with no religion, it wouldn't bother me at all.
I think all drugs should be decriminalized. Not legalized, because that implies the government is 'permitting' their use. It isn't the government's business what I put into my body. Also, I don't do drugs and rarely drink alcohol.
I told people twenty years ago that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business. Let the churches marry people, let the government keep their noses out. This would include eliminating marriage benefits/penalties in taxes, inheritance, and other government concerns.
Gambling and prostitution are illegal because the government knows they can't effectively tax them, except in tightly controlled situations like lottery tickets, casinos, and brothels in one county in Nevada. Decriminalize those activities as well.
You apparently think I am a racist too. I don't even recognize faces when I am looking at people. I barely register their race or sex while talking to them. I have had conversations with people, when ten minutes later I couldn't tell you if they were black or white, male or female. I discuss views, not skin color or body differences.
Also, if you don't think that rules out racism, maybe you should ask my wife who is of Asian descent, my daughter who is then half-Asian, or my other family members who are various mixtures of white, black, hispanic, or asian. Surely if I am a racist, they would have noticed.
Maybe my politics would reveal my true intolerant self. However I voted for Barack Obama in 2008, even though I didn't agree with his politics. I felt it was time for a person with a different world view (other than white guy who lived his whole life in the US) to hold the office. I've stated this before, if you want to somehow verify my claim.
I will admit, I did not vote for Obama in 2012. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. I disagree with almost every thing the Green Party has for a plank. But again, she was the candidate I liked, and she is the candidate I chose to vote for. My personal beliefs are not the most important part of my decisions. As Spock said, "The needs of the many,...."
You seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I am a big bad conservative because I called out someone for attacking another poster simply for having different views. You further seem to believe I automatically support those views, just because I believe that person has a right to have them and speak them.
By the way, have you seen my sig? What conservative would have such a sig?
I thought people were allowed to have their own beliefs in this country without others attacking them for it.
Why would you think so, when the very First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech?
It was a rhetorical question. Doesn't seem so hard to figure that one out.
But to call someone out like you did, simply because they might believe something you don't like, is bullshit.
However, attacking someone for spreading an outright evil belief is perfectly okay.
I agree with that, but I don't see any "outright evil" in supporting a group someone belongs to. Unless you think the blacks who support affirmative action are also outright evil, as are gay people who support marriage equality.
As I say in a reply further down, a few of those anti-whatever positions you mention would be directed at me and my family. It isn't my beliefs I'm defending, intolerant or otherwise.
As for political correctness, you are the one advocating it. I'm just pointing it out.
I'm going to insert a portion of my previous post that I decided to remove before posting, because it may have been a misinterpretation on my part. From your response, I now know it is spot on.
I would suggest working on your reading comprehension. But from recent discussions I've had with your fellow liberals, I know you can't possibly read something from another person's viewpoint to get a better understanding. You will read my comments with the greatest ill intent, because I will neither agree with you, nor knuckle under to your views.
Even after having it explained to you, reading from another's view is an impossible task. Which is ironic, because that probably is what you would want your opponents to do so that they would have a better understanding of people they disagree with.
Yes, I cut that from my previous post, in case I was wrong. I needn't have worried.
I know. I just have to point it out every so often.
The silly part is they now think I support whatever group that guy has in his sig, when a few of those anti-whatever positions would attack me and my family.
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of your speech, sweet cheeks. He's free to associate with a disgusting ideology that holds certain people inferior because of how they're born, I'm free to mock him for it.
Personally, I agree that you are free to mock him for it. It just seems like so much hypocrisy when the liberal mantra for the last twenty years is "You can't judge me!" Now that you have a voice, all you can do in the face of opposing views is attack and mock. In my view, your attitude is no different than what you claim his attitude is. Intolerance for people who are not in your group.
Go on, attack and mock those who you don't agree with. Attack me all you want. It just shows your intolerance. Not that those who agree with you care that you are all intolerant. Intolerance is now the greatest virtue of the liberal mind, as long as it is in support of liberal ideology.
For that matter, I'm free to mock your ignorance.
Ignorance?
I guess you missed the rhetorical nature of my comment.
Anyway, thanks for the reply. I don't agree with your viewpoint, but you have the right to have it.
See, your post is the example of stupid arguments I have no problem attacking. You make so many false assumptions, just because you got your panties in a twist, you can't think straight.
And why would I sue an anonymous idiot on a message board? What, do you think your stupidity bothers me or has hurt me somehow?
I thought people were allowed to have their own beliefs in this country without others attacking them for it.
I don't agree with a lot of people's personal, political, and religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean I should attack them based on those beliefs.
You can attack them for making stupid arguments in support of their beliefs, no problem. But to call someone out like you did, simply because they might believe something you don't like, is bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
If you assume any sort of liquid core during the planet's history, then the heaviest masses would move toward equilibrium. That would tend to be at the center, since moving away from the center would usually be moving against more mass (and more gravity) than what it would be moving toward.
Unfortunately, people on this site that specializes in technology, don't actually believe that generational spaceships are possible. Either now or in all of our future timeframe.
I tried to make a similar argument about 2 months ago, and got nothing but grief for postulating such an idea.
And you are very late to the party.
If instead of typing:
I thought people were allowed to have their own beliefs in this country without others attacking them for it.
I had typed
Aren't people allowed to have their own beliefs in this country without others attacking them for it?
would that be a 'rhetorical question'? That was the spirit my statement was meant as.
As for now using the term 'rhetorical' for my statement, it is in the sense of either of these definitions:
language that is intended to influence people and that may not be honest or reasonable
the art or skill of speaking or writing formally and effectively especially as a way to persuade or influence people
Apparently it was a clumsy attempt.
Yes, I admit my sentence was not "honest or reasonable", because I do realize the First Amendment gives Nimey the right to speak his mind. As my next sentence pointed out, I simply don't agree with attacking people just because they have different beliefs than I do. I could have phrased that as "I don't believe in ad hominem attacks," because that is all that Nimey's post was. It doesn't matter if I agree with Nimey's views or not, I don't think that is the correct way to argue against someone's views.
Sorry I said "rhetorical question" when I meant "rhetorical statement". The phrase "It was a rhetorical question." is so common, that is how I accidentally typed it. If I started the line with "Aren't people allowed ...", would it have made a difference in how people replied to it? Doubtful. It isn't worth spending more time on that point.
I still don't see outright evil here, either in supporting one's favored political groups, or in groups that advocate things I disagree with. I don't see where the harm you mention comes in, since I doubt he wants to lynch blacks or stone homosexuals. Gay marriage is a false equivalency in my mind, since marriage has almost always been a religious institution, so I think the government should have no say in it anyway. A century ago my marriage would not have been legal in some states, because my wife isn't white. If the government wants to restrict marriage, the correct response is to get marriage away from government. Which is what I have been saying since the 1980s.
That being said, someone advocating for 'traditional marriage' is not evil, and they are not hoping to harm gays. They have their beliefs, probably based on their religion, and they have the right to those beliefs. The same way the polygamists believe they have the right to marry multiple women. As long as they are all consenting adults, I don't have a problem with it. And I think that will be legal in this country soon enough, since it logically follows on the gay marriage argument. I find it ironic that some supporters of marriage equality react in horror that argument, as if multiple spouses is so unnatural.
Finally, why am I "almost certainly a sock puppet"? Just because I don't believe in attacking people simply for beliefs I don't share? Because I used a rhetorical device in my first post, assuming more people would catch it? Because I am not shocked and horrified that some people have a tribal mentality? Or just because I actually respond to posts by giving my views on subjects rather than apologizing for them?
Monopoly is a game. Football is a game. Mahjong is a game.
Where do you draw the line to define a gamer.
Exactly. Most of my computer gaming is with FreeCell and Spider Solitaire. Does that make me a "gamer", since those are games on a computer?
people who thought the Lion King was good are furries.
The animated movie, or the Broadway stage show?
Good thing to keep in mind. :^)
Hi, i.kazmi.
I agree that calling out someone for their views is fine. I just didn't like the sense of "Don't listen to this guy, because I don't agree with him," that Nimey's post displayed. I would rather discuss someone's views, than shut them down. I guess I did assume the rhetorical nature of my statement would be more obvious to everyone.
As for conservative vs. liberal, I realize my posts overall are more conservative. But I think it is more in the "Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone" style, not the "Everyone must go to church or face eternal damnation," style. Maybe I have to work on balancing my liberal side a bit more.
As for Democrats being right-wing, what is it (other than being beholden to corporate campaign contributions) that makes you say that? The Democrat party is for abortion, gay rights, universal health care, welfare, social services, and unions, among other liberal causes. In your opinion, what makes them right wing?
Anyway, thanks for the response.
Thank you for the defense.
Also, do I have to make a [Rhetorical] tag for future statements of a similar manner?
You are wrong. He was specifically not attacking me because of my simple rhetorical phrase. He was attacking me because he thinks that I don't agree with his views, or he thinks I agree with the views of the person he originally attacked.
He even says so:
It's amazing, isn't it, just how many conservative victims are on /. these days. Bonus points for whining about someone not tolerating your intolerance, and for whining about it in an intolerant way.
He assumes I am a conservative, and that I have the same intolerance as the OP. He is wrong on both counts.
I can see how it appears that he is attacking my specific phrase, but he showed his true intentions soon enough.
Calm down Francis.
First, as I have stated a few times above, it was rhetorical.
Second, supporting someone's right to their own beliefs does not mean I share those beliefs.
Third, Nimey is the one who wished to take away someone's right to Free Speech. As would you. Which means you would only fight as far as is convenient, which is probably where it is too far past the couch to reach the remote and bag of Cheetos.
You may be surprised to learn I am not conservative. Let me enlighten you a bit:
I am not religious. I don't believe the Bible or Koran or Vedas are divinely inspired. If all men could live in peace with no religion, it wouldn't bother me at all.
I think all drugs should be decriminalized. Not legalized, because that implies the government is 'permitting' their use. It isn't the government's business what I put into my body. Also, I don't do drugs and rarely drink alcohol.
I told people twenty years ago that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business. Let the churches marry people, let the government keep their noses out. This would include eliminating marriage benefits/penalties in taxes, inheritance, and other government concerns.
Gambling and prostitution are illegal because the government knows they can't effectively tax them, except in tightly controlled situations like lottery tickets, casinos, and brothels in one county in Nevada. Decriminalize those activities as well.
You apparently think I am a racist too. I don't even recognize faces when I am looking at people. I barely register their race or sex while talking to them. I have had conversations with people, when ten minutes later I couldn't tell you if they were black or white, male or female. I discuss views, not skin color or body differences.
Also, if you don't think that rules out racism, maybe you should ask my wife who is of Asian descent, my daughter who is then half-Asian, or my other family members who are various mixtures of white, black, hispanic, or asian. Surely if I am a racist, they would have noticed.
Maybe my politics would reveal my true intolerant self. However I voted for Barack Obama in 2008, even though I didn't agree with his politics. I felt it was time for a person with a different world view (other than white guy who lived his whole life in the US) to hold the office. I've stated this before, if you want to somehow verify my claim.
I will admit, I did not vote for Obama in 2012. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. I disagree with almost every thing the Green Party has for a plank. But again, she was the candidate I liked, and she is the candidate I chose to vote for. My personal beliefs are not the most important part of my decisions. As Spock said, "The needs of the many, ...."
You seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I am a big bad conservative because I called out someone for attacking another poster simply for having different views. You further seem to believe I automatically support those views, just because I believe that person has a right to have them and speak them.
By the way, have you seen my sig? What conservative would have such a sig?
You don't see how one racist viewpoint is equivalent to another racist viewpoint?
As I said above, you can't possibly see the world from anyone's view but your own.
And I'm trolling you for intolerance, when my whole point is intolerance for people with opposing views. You're no smarter than you think I am.
Why would you think so, when the very First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech?
It was a rhetorical question. Doesn't seem so hard to figure that one out.
However, attacking someone for spreading an outright evil belief is perfectly okay.
I agree with that, but I don't see any "outright evil" in supporting a group someone belongs to. Unless you think the blacks who support affirmative action are also outright evil, as are gay people who support marriage equality.
As I say in a reply further down, a few of those anti-whatever positions you mention would be directed at me and my family. It isn't my beliefs I'm defending, intolerant or otherwise.
As for political correctness, you are the one advocating it. I'm just pointing it out.
I'm going to insert a portion of my previous post that I decided to remove before posting, because it may have been a misinterpretation on my part. From your response, I now know it is spot on.
I would suggest working on your reading comprehension. But from recent discussions I've had with your fellow liberals, I know you can't possibly read something from another person's viewpoint to get a better understanding. You will read my comments with the greatest ill intent, because I will neither agree with you, nor knuckle under to your views.
Even after having it explained to you, reading from another's view is an impossible task. Which is ironic, because that probably is what you would want your opponents to do so that they would have a better understanding of people they disagree with.
Yes, I cut that from my previous post, in case I was wrong. I needn't have worried.
So are you attacking him for being gay, or for supporting legalization of drugs? Why are you a homophobic supporter of Big Pharma?
I know. I just have to point it out every so often.
The silly part is they now think I support whatever group that guy has in his sig, when a few of those anti-whatever positions would attack me and my family.
by the way, you had a great comeback to the AC.
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of your speech, sweet cheeks. He's free to associate with a disgusting ideology that holds certain people inferior because of how they're born, I'm free to mock him for it.
Personally, I agree that you are free to mock him for it. It just seems like so much hypocrisy when the liberal mantra for the last twenty years is "You can't judge me!" Now that you have a voice, all you can do in the face of opposing views is attack and mock. In my view, your attitude is no different than what you claim his attitude is. Intolerance for people who are not in your group.
Go on, attack and mock those who you don't agree with. Attack me all you want. It just shows your intolerance. Not that those who agree with you care that you are all intolerant. Intolerance is now the greatest virtue of the liberal mind, as long as it is in support of liberal ideology.
For that matter, I'm free to mock your ignorance.
Ignorance?
I guess you missed the rhetorical nature of my comment.
Anyway, thanks for the reply. I don't agree with your viewpoint, but you have the right to have it.
See, your post is the example of stupid arguments I have no problem attacking. You make so many false assumptions, just because you got your panties in a twist, you can't think straight.
And why would I sue an anonymous idiot on a message board? What, do you think your stupidity bothers me or has hurt me somehow?
We are the ones who get a "Participation Trophy" just for showing up.
And?
I thought people were allowed to have their own beliefs in this country without others attacking them for it.
I don't agree with a lot of people's personal, political, and religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean I should attack them based on those beliefs.
You can attack them for making stupid arguments in support of their beliefs, no problem. But to call someone out like you did, simply because they might believe something you don't like, is bullshit.
Well, yeah but, you don't play jazz. Do ya?