Humans pay more attention to more salient or novel stimuli. Something valuable, or more desired, is going to pop out.
In evolutionary terms, food sources that were more scarce--food 'worth' more, you can say--would definitely demand more attention that random vegetable matter, be it prey or fruits or so on. Same thing with water, or more attractive mates, or perhaps good sources of shelter, or so on.
The result of this experiment is entirely what you would expect.
I, an atheist who holds all "spiritual" beliefs to be false, guarantee you that you have at least one belief not backed by the scientific method.
But the difference is, probably, he relies on evidence and is willing to be shown that he is wrong when he is.
If you're frustrated with a religious practice, argue against it, and if it's justified with the foundation of that religion, then argue against the foundation of that religion. Blanket statements like yours are unjustifiable.
When religion disagrees with the facts, you argue the facts and the evidence behind those facts, which are arrived at via scientific methodology. When religions make claims unsupported by any evidence, you, too, make note of that such like any other bogus theory. Thetans, ether, unicorns, they are are equally lacking in evidence.
And, I will note, you do NOT have statistically meaningful scientific evidence that "Religion is a virus of the mind for those weaklings who cannot accept that we're a biochemical process who one day will cease to function as a living organism." You made that up and took it on faith to justify your other irrational beliefs. Come on. Be a better rationalist. Either find real issues with religion-qua-religion or accept that it doesn't make a fucking difference (religion-qua-religion that is...we can all cite a laundry list of specific examples where a religion or religious belief made a fucking difference).
First off, religion DOES make a difference. Anything that promotes or relies upon belief based upon unobserved "truths" in the manner of "revelation" or "faith" is potentially dangerous. Much of the evil in the world done isn't because of malice, it's because people simply believe in things unsupported by evidence. Charity, goodwill, and helping others, however, can and does exist independently of religion. The "good" parts of religion need not vanish along with the "bad" parts (the false beliefs).
As for his invective of "weaklings", yes, that is psychologically... naive, as well as seeming to be a bit of a value-judgment, but I think he is taking a page out of Dawkins' book in terms of viewing religion as a meme that reproduces well but not does give us access to the truth, and I agree with that. However, if you view religious people psychologically it's not proper to brush them all as being "weaklings".
...which I said because what he or she said has little do to with what goes on in school.
If you want to talk about children and the sophisticated methods used to "help them integrate information" *cough* then we can also talk about the utter failure of schools to do exactly that.
No, it wasn't, and I find that people who often instantly throw out names of fallacies without explaining how it is so typically don't understand the fallacy they refer to...
Don't make the mistake of confusing cause and correlation. Much of the "first world" is far more homogeneous than the USA is, both in population and climate, and there are also dietary factors as well.
And, even if you are correct... how much "FREEDOM" are you willing to give up for health and infant mortality rates?
The draconian tobacco laws in Europe (I don't smoke, BTW) were put in place only to spare on social healthcare costs.
And for the USA I've warned others that the war on drugs will NEVER end if universal healthcare were enacted, and there may well be laws on food and things we consume in general. That our right to take risks will be partially negated "for the greater good". Of course, they laugh. I do hope we get universal healthcare so I can laugh at the resulting mess.
In all honesty the whole healthcare thing is a selfish act--a rational one, yet selfish. People are afraid of their own mortality and the fact that others can get care they can't.
Do they blame doctors, for charging high fees? Medical schools, for tuition costs? Malpractice legislation and insurance? Their fellow man, for being blind to the plight of others?
No, of course not! It's *CAPITALISM*, despite the fact that everyone could naturally get together and help out anyway. Anything that can be done in a socialist system can be done in a free-enterprise one, except the state socialist one has the government taking, presumably without the consent of some.
Do you see those promoting universal healthcare paying for the healthcare of others? Sometimes, yes, you do (Michael Moore did this, but his reasons are suspect as he did it for a critic of his.. but he did it, nonetheless) but more often then not, you don't. And why should they, as they're not getting anything out of it!
It's true it could be easier to organize by doing this via government, but I suspect no one who promotes univeral healthcare is ever going to allow people to opt-out of the system, no matter how much they argue that it's best for each and every one of us.
And yet you can read and write... amazing. So? I never said all my teachers were incompetent.
Actually, my writing ability, judging by my peers' work in college, is above-average, and that scares me.
Ignorance is forgivable. You seem to think that a student should be able to hand out cds at school willy nilly. Sorry, but no, I dont want your porn/virus/trojan laced cds booting on my machines because some kid says it is all good.
Yes, I do think students should be able to pass out CDs at their discretion. What's on them, and how they are used may well be their responsibility, however. It's not like you can't get viruses from the internet, which almost all school computers are hooked up to, anyway.
Nope you don't. But your premise is wrong. School has to be a controlled environment, but equating that with prison is lazy philosophy. Schools have always been tightly controlled. You seem to think that they should be some sort of democracy. They shouldn't. Look at the world of any JR college to see why thatfails in so many ways.
Not once did I imply schools should be a democracy. I did say that they should not be the environment that stifles creativity and learning you seem to think they should. Hell, passing out Linux CDs is a great way to learn about computers. But through fear and needing to control everything students see and hear and do only acts as an impediment to learning.
I didn't say schools are necessarily a prison, although in many ways they are. However, students VIEW them as prison, and they will feel as if they are in prison. Students HATE school and frequently skip and apparently are cheating more than ever. Doesn't sound like our teachers are cultivating minds, does it?
No, people in general have no flippin' idea what the word '*nix' means He argued, "This is a classic example why people hate *nix." I was talking about tech saavy people that know about *nix anyway, your point is extremely pedantic.
What is truly sad about this is the public perception that teachers and the teacher unions are disrupting eduction. As is clearly shown here, the disruptive comes from persons who beleive they are so smart that they are not forced to be a teacher, and therefore qualified to tell the teacher what to do. Did you even graduate from high school? Many instructors are completely incompetent and are just plain silly. I've had good instructors, too. But I had enough bad ones to lose faith in teachers in general.
First, here is a fact. Teaching a job, just like those who sit in office doing nothing more than type code on keyboard. I mean, how hard can it be type random gibberish in a keyboard? Anyone can do it, !. So the teachers first goal is keep the class moving so objectives can be taught, assessed, rethought, and year end tests passed. Do teachers do this to maximize bonuses. Duh, are we idiots, of course. Why are the automakers begging for money right now, to kep 8 figure salaries. Why do we code for any semi-legitimate business, to make the money. And the fact is, many teachers are very bad at their jobs. Even worse, teachers are authority over children, and many turn students completely off to education. I don't know how many teachers I've had spout off things that were absolutely wrong or bullshit. Too busy assigning children pointless busy work, too busy making them hate school and education to respect the opportunity.
Second, the tools teachers use are the tools teachers use. How many geeks know how to use every OS, every IDE. How many developers know how to write software without an IDE, or can code direct in assembly. Does that make the developers idiots. I might say so, but not really as I have a inch of compassion and am not an arrogant bastard. No one is going to go into an office, give the staff new software to use, and expect management not to react. See point one. Teacher are there to teach content, not be experts at things not even experts agree on. Many serious consider Free OS invalid. In is an opinion. Considering it otherwise refers back to the arrogant bastard....What? There's a difference between "not being an expert on everything" and being an ignorant jackass, which it sounds like what the teacher was doing.
There are no serious experts that consider "Free OS" (?) "invalid".
Third, a classroom is necessarily a controlled environment. While it would be nice to allow kids to do whatever they want, it is not feasible. In most schools, computers are not set up as a redundant array of disposable devices, and if a computer is broken, that generally means several students are denied an education for at least a little while. While teaching *nix is a lofty goal, i wonder if the organization would be there to fix the machines before the next class came in, or if they would just say, hey it is not my problem, and i don't care if some kids loses an education.
If a student installs an OS on a school computer, it is that students' fault. If a kid is passing out Linux to friends to use on their home computers, then it is no problem. You say school is a controlled environment, but so is prison. Treat schools like a prison, and students will appreciate them like a prison. Believe it or not, you don't have to chain students down to get order.
This is a classic example of why people hate *nix. Here is a guy who is trying to help the cause, but instead has shown how clueless the cause is. Unlike Dell Foundation, who provides money to teachers to help thing, this guy just seems to attack teachers with no understanding of the context. Even now, there is no acknowledgment of the damage that has been done to the students.
No, people in general do not hate *nix and even if they did this wouldn't be a reason. Most people who know enough about *nix hate it because of some technical reason or because they want to seem anti-nerd. As for that... WHAT damage done to students, that teachers didn't do?
I don't blame Ken's response, even the NEA crap, as he responded in very reasonable anger to a very unreasonable letter. Yes, he got the facts wrong, and went off the deep end a bit with trying to tie this with Microsoft/the NEA conspiracy thing, but I'd imagine that kind of rant was born out of his anger for how ridiculous the teacher's initial letter is.
The student in question was apparently "disruptive". Now, looking back to my school days, "disruptive" meant just about anything. I have a feeling the student wasn't really being disruptive and the teacher just wanted some sort of excuse for confiscating the disks in the first place that would still make her appear to have been in the right.
I mean, hell, in middle school I got yelled at from some brain-dead teacher in some typing/computer class for trying to plug the head phones in by ourselves. THE HEADPHONES! "ARE YOU A TECHNICIAN?", she said. I'm not siding with the teacher on this one, given how inept they often are with technology and how often I've seen them bother students for nonissues like particular pieces of clothing (torn jeans? This is an educational facility not the fashion academy!) or relatively minor crap.
Actually, no child was hurt at all by Sony. At all. Quit casually throwing out the word "hurt" when you simply mean that children were exposed to things you think were "offensive" or "bad".
OK, I actually agree with you there, at least in the terms of "identity." Most people barely know that the Federal Reserve exists so seeing that question marked up so high is suspicious...
Do note that a lot of these "gold bugs" (e.g., Ron Paul) do not necessarily prefer returning to a gold standard but some sort of hard asset.
But I think that their view, if you grant them wanting to limiting government spending, is perfectly rational as it does limit government spending.
No, I disagree with just about everything he said, but not that. There IS a secular case for being anti-abortion, and it's tied to the personhood issue. Is it a strong argument? I don't think so, but the case can certainly be made.
Yes, most pro-lifers think it is a person. Their definition of a person is, I think, rather silly--sometimes declaring that a person is whatever you have right after conception, or when "there's a beating heart" (an obviously more emotional basis), or brain waves (so does every other living animal on Earth).
I agree that the pro-abortionist can have a rational position. Where did I state otherwise?
As for my arm analogy, you state that a an arm has never been, and never will be, a person. Fair enough, I would say, but you already jumped in defending the pro-lifer's idea that the fetus is a person--which I think is silly. So again, we are forced to ask, what is a person? Why can't I say an arm is a person, if they can say an ovum just combined with a sperm is? It's true that an arm, under normal circumstances, could never BECOME a person by almost any idea of what a "person" is, but so what? Why does the potential to become a person suddenly grant a non-person the rights we ascribe to people? You bring up DNA, but every cell in the arm has DNA in it to, and furthermore "human" does not equate "person". There may not be a logical fallacy, but a fallacy is not necessary for a bad argument.
As for getting your arm lopped off, that's to protect YOU, not your arm. The anti-abortionists are trying to protect the fetus. If you lopped off your own arm, it's unlikely you'd be convicted of a crime (at least, you shouldn't be in an ideal world if for some reason you didn't want an arm anymore) whereas in the anti-abortionist world an abortion would always be illegal, by doctor approval or not.
As for people with brain damage, to a degree, yes, they can certainly be declared to be a "non-person" at certain junctures. Terri Schaivo was dead long before her body died.
Also, I'd like to point out that I said nothing about "simple self-awareness" in the first place.
I'm as pro-abortion as I am "pro-removal of any other organ of your body". At least, until the fetus becomes a person (again, difficult to define, but you can see the difference, no?) as while both are alive, they are biologically alive and not both thinking entities which is often a hidden meaning often used when people speak of "life" regarding the abortion debate.
I think a lot of the abortion debate is people confusing what they mean by "life"...
Abortion, if you're not killing a person (tricky thing to define, I admit, but your arm is alive and removing ('aborting') it is no moral problem and I feel the same way about an unthinking fetus.
I don't understand the arguments that seem to justify murder for the woman's convenience, however, anymore than killing baby after birth for the woman's convenience is acceptable. Even in a future where a fetus can be transplanted into another mother I suspect the "pro-choice" crowd will insist that the mother can still choose to abort it.
Likewise, with anonymity, I think it's one of the best parts about the internet. It's hardly unfortunate that it makes it difficult for governments to track down dissenters, etc. Sure, people use it for bad things as well, but that's true of ANY freedom. Might as well suggest that "free speech is unfortunate thing that people should still have the right to." People will 'abuse' free speech in other different ways but it's still inherently a good thing.
Many people feel the government should remain neutral to the political parties. They exist, but the workings of the government should not serve to favor them. You use this as an example of trying to suggest that it's "OK" but to me it sounds more like even more of a reason to restrict usage of the.gov TLD even more.
The truthers are nuts, but the "asset-backed currency" people are not necessarily such and most people really have no opinion or idea on what an asset-backed currency entails and what its advantages and/or disadvantages are. To compare truthers with them is more of your political perspective more than them being "crazy."
I have no real opinion on asset-backed currency, myself.
This colin guy you linked to, are you saying, "Will you consider removing "In God We Trust" from our money, given that this violates a true separation between church and state, is unconstitutional in spirit, and is insulting to the ~30 million citizens who choose not to share in this belief."
is a bad idea? I hardly think so! Yet the majority are against it.
Measuring a site based on responses like this is very biased and not representative of what people really think. Given that it's a Democratic website during a Democratic presidency with a Democratic congress I'm guessing that his supporters and such will be visiting far more than McCain supporters or some independents.
Again, it's likely we'll be seeing answers only to questions that aren't controversial or potentially damaging. It's their turf, they chose the questions, they are going to answer softball questions that probably address mostly basic platform issues and nothing more.
Questions can be both marked up/down AND moderated. I was discussing moderation only. You think the only moderation mechanism is going to be marking up/down? Please.
Slashdot Mirror
Humans pay more attention to more salient or novel stimuli. Something valuable, or more desired, is going to pop out.
In evolutionary terms, food sources that were more scarce--food 'worth' more, you can say--would definitely demand more attention that random vegetable matter, be it prey or fruits or so on. Same thing with water, or more attractive mates, or perhaps good sources of shelter, or so on.
The result of this experiment is entirely what you would expect.
That's not how it works.
But they didn't protect it until now.
I wonder how many religions have started that way?
I, an atheist who holds all "spiritual" beliefs to be false, guarantee you that you have at least one belief not backed by the scientific method.
But the difference is, probably, he relies on evidence and is willing to be shown that he is wrong when he is.
If you're frustrated with a religious practice, argue against it, and if it's justified with the foundation of that religion, then argue against the foundation of that religion. Blanket statements like yours are unjustifiable.
When religion disagrees with the facts, you argue the facts and the evidence behind those facts, which are arrived at via scientific methodology. When religions make claims unsupported by any evidence, you, too, make note of that such like any other bogus theory. Thetans, ether, unicorns, they are are equally lacking in evidence.
And, I will note, you do NOT have statistically meaningful scientific evidence that "Religion is a virus of the mind for those weaklings who cannot accept that we're a biochemical process who one day will cease to function as a living organism." You made that up and took it on faith to justify your other irrational beliefs. Come on. Be a better rationalist. Either find real issues with religion-qua-religion or accept that it doesn't make a fucking difference (religion-qua-religion that is...we can all cite a laundry list of specific examples where a religion or religious belief made a fucking difference).
First off, religion DOES make a difference. Anything that promotes or relies upon belief based upon unobserved "truths" in the manner of "revelation" or "faith" is potentially dangerous. Much of the evil in the world done isn't because of malice, it's because people simply believe in things unsupported by evidence. Charity, goodwill, and helping others, however, can and does exist independently of religion. The "good" parts of religion need not vanish along with the "bad" parts (the false beliefs).
As for his invective of "weaklings", yes, that is psychologically... naive, as well as seeming to be a bit of a value-judgment, but I think he is taking a page out of Dawkins' book in terms of viewing religion as a meme that reproduces well but not does give us access to the truth, and I agree with that. However, if you view religious people psychologically it's not proper to brush them all as being "weaklings".
Countdown until Intrinsic starts talking about "quantum mechanics" and "The Secret"...
...which I said because what he or she said has little do to with what goes on in school.
If you want to talk about children and the sophisticated methods used to "help them integrate information" *cough* then we can also talk about the utter failure of schools to do exactly that.
No, it wasn't, and I find that people who often instantly throw out names of fallacies without explaining how it is so typically don't understand the fallacy they refer to...
Don't make the mistake of confusing cause and correlation. Much of the "first world" is far more homogeneous than the USA is, both in population and climate, and there are also dietary factors as well.
And, even if you are correct... how much "FREEDOM" are you willing to give up for health and infant mortality rates?
The draconian tobacco laws in Europe (I don't smoke, BTW) were put in place only to spare on social healthcare costs.
And for the USA I've warned others that the war on drugs will NEVER end if universal healthcare were enacted, and there may well be laws on food and things we consume in general. That our right to take risks will be partially negated "for the greater good". Of course, they laugh. I do hope we get universal healthcare so I can laugh at the resulting mess.
In all honesty the whole healthcare thing is a selfish act--a rational one, yet selfish. People are afraid of their own mortality and the fact that others can get care they can't.
Do they blame doctors, for charging high fees? Medical schools, for tuition costs? Malpractice legislation and insurance? Their fellow man, for being blind to the plight of others?
No, of course not! It's *CAPITALISM*, despite the fact that everyone could naturally get together and help out anyway. Anything that can be done in a socialist system can be done in a free-enterprise one, except the state socialist one has the government taking, presumably without the consent of some.
Do you see those promoting universal healthcare paying for the healthcare of others? Sometimes, yes, you do (Michael Moore did this, but his reasons are suspect as he did it for a critic of his.. but he did it, nonetheless) but more often then not, you don't. And why should they, as they're not getting anything out of it!
It's true it could be easier to organize by doing this via government, but I suspect no one who promotes univeral healthcare is ever going to allow people to opt-out of the system, no matter how much they argue that it's best for each and every one of us.
And yet you can read and write ... amazing.
So? I never said all my teachers were incompetent.
Actually, my writing ability, judging by my peers' work in college, is above-average, and that scares me.
Ignorance is forgivable. You seem to think that a student should be able to hand out cds at school willy nilly. Sorry, but no, I dont want your porn/virus/trojan laced cds booting on my machines because some kid says it is all good.
Yes, I do think students should be able to pass out CDs at their discretion. What's on them, and how they are used may well be their responsibility, however. It's not like you can't get viruses from the internet, which almost all school computers are hooked up to, anyway.
Nope you don't. But your premise is wrong. School has to be a controlled environment, but equating that with prison is lazy philosophy. Schools have always been tightly controlled. You seem to think that they should be some sort of democracy. They shouldn't. Look at the world of any JR college to see why thatfails in so many ways.
Not once did I imply schools should be a democracy. I did say that they should not be the environment that stifles creativity and learning you seem to think they should. Hell, passing out Linux CDs is a great way to learn about computers. But through fear and needing to control everything students see and hear and do only acts as an impediment to learning.
I didn't say schools are necessarily a prison, although in many ways they are. However, students VIEW them as prison, and they will feel as if they are in prison. Students HATE school and frequently skip and apparently are cheating more than ever. Doesn't sound like our teachers are cultivating minds, does it?
No, people in general have no flippin' idea what the word '*nix' means
He argued, "This is a classic example why people hate *nix." I was talking about tech saavy people that know about *nix anyway, your point is extremely pedantic.
What is truly sad about this is the public perception that teachers and the teacher unions are disrupting eduction. As is clearly shown here, the disruptive comes from persons who beleive they are so smart that they are not forced to be a teacher, and therefore qualified to tell the teacher what to do.
Did you even graduate from high school? Many instructors are completely incompetent and are just plain silly. I've had good instructors, too. But I had enough bad ones to lose faith in teachers in general.
First, here is a fact. Teaching a job, just like those who sit in office doing nothing more than type code on keyboard. I mean, how hard can it be type random gibberish in a keyboard? Anyone can do it, !. So the teachers first goal is keep the class moving so objectives can be taught, assessed, rethought, and year end tests passed. Do teachers do this to maximize bonuses. Duh, are we idiots, of course. Why are the automakers begging for money right now, to kep 8 figure salaries. Why do we code for any semi-legitimate business, to make the money.
And the fact is, many teachers are very bad at their jobs. Even worse, teachers are authority over children, and many turn students completely off to education. I don't know how many teachers I've had spout off things that were absolutely wrong or bullshit. Too busy assigning children pointless busy work, too busy making them hate school and education to respect the opportunity.
Second, the tools teachers use are the tools teachers use. How many geeks know how to use every OS, every IDE. How many developers know how to write software without an IDE, or can code direct in assembly. Does that make the developers idiots. I might say so, but not really as I have a inch of compassion and am not an arrogant bastard. No one is going to go into an office, give the staff new software to use, and expect management not to react. See point one. Teacher are there to teach content, not be experts at things not even experts agree on. Many serious consider Free OS invalid. In is an opinion. Considering it otherwise refers back to the arrogant bastard. ...What? There's a difference between "not being an expert on everything" and being an ignorant jackass, which it sounds like what the teacher was doing.
There are no serious experts that consider "Free OS" (?) "invalid".
Third, a classroom is necessarily a controlled environment. While it would be nice to allow kids to do whatever they want, it is not feasible. In most schools, computers are not set up as a redundant array of disposable devices, and if a computer is broken, that generally means several students are denied an education for at least a little while. While teaching *nix is a lofty goal, i wonder if the organization would be there to fix the machines before the next class came in, or if they would just say, hey it is not my problem, and i don't care if some kids loses an education.
If a student installs an OS on a school computer, it is that students' fault. If a kid is passing out Linux to friends to use on their home computers, then it is no problem. You say school is a controlled environment, but so is prison. Treat schools like a prison, and students will appreciate them like a prison. Believe it or not, you don't have to chain students down to get order.
This is a classic example of why people hate *nix. Here is a guy who is trying to help the cause, but instead has shown how clueless the cause is. Unlike Dell Foundation, who provides money to teachers to help thing, this guy just seems to attack teachers with no understanding of the context. Even now, there is no acknowledgment of the damage that has been done to the students.
No, people in general do not hate *nix and even if they did this wouldn't be a reason. Most people who know enough about *nix hate it because of some technical reason or because they want to seem anti-nerd. As for that... WHAT damage done to students, that teachers didn't do?
I don't blame Ken's response, even the NEA crap, as he responded in very reasonable anger to a very unreasonable letter. Yes, he got the facts wrong, and went off the deep end a bit with trying to tie this with Microsoft/the NEA conspiracy thing, but I'd imagine that kind of rant was born out of his anger for how ridiculous the teacher's initial letter is.
The student in question was apparently "disruptive". Now, looking back to my school days, "disruptive" meant just about anything. I have a feeling the student wasn't really being disruptive and the teacher just wanted some sort of excuse for confiscating the disks in the first place that would still make her appear to have been in the right.
I mean, hell, in middle school I got yelled at from some brain-dead teacher in some typing/computer class for trying to plug the head phones in by ourselves. THE HEADPHONES! "ARE YOU A TECHNICIAN?", she said. I'm not siding with the teacher on this one, given how inept they often are with technology and how often I've seen them bother students for nonissues like particular pieces of clothing (torn jeans? This is an educational facility not the fashion academy!) or relatively minor crap.
Actually, no child was hurt at all by Sony. At all. Quit casually throwing out the word "hurt" when you simply mean that children were exposed to things you think were "offensive" or "bad".
OK, I actually agree with you there, at least in the terms of "identity." Most people barely know that the Federal Reserve exists so seeing that question marked up so high is suspicious...
Do note that a lot of these "gold bugs" (e.g., Ron Paul) do not necessarily prefer returning to a gold standard but some sort of hard asset.
But I think that their view, if you grant them wanting to limiting government spending, is perfectly rational as it does limit government spending.
No, I disagree with just about everything he said, but not that. There IS a secular case for being anti-abortion, and it's tied to the personhood issue. Is it a strong argument? I don't think so, but the case can certainly be made.
Bad arguments.
Yes, most pro-lifers think it is a person. Their definition of a person is, I think, rather silly--sometimes declaring that a person is whatever you have right after conception, or when "there's a beating heart" (an obviously more emotional basis), or brain waves (so does every other living animal on Earth).
I agree that the pro-abortionist can have a rational position. Where did I state otherwise?
As for my arm analogy, you state that a an arm has never been, and never will be, a person. Fair enough, I would say, but you already jumped in defending the pro-lifer's idea that the fetus is a person--which I think is silly. So again, we are forced to ask, what is a person? Why can't I say an arm is a person, if they can say an ovum just combined with a sperm is? It's true that an arm, under normal circumstances, could never BECOME a person by almost any idea of what a "person" is, but so what? Why does the potential to become a person suddenly grant a non-person the rights we ascribe to people? You bring up DNA, but every cell in the arm has DNA in it to, and furthermore "human" does not equate "person". There may not be a logical fallacy, but a fallacy is not necessary for a bad argument.
As for getting your arm lopped off, that's to protect YOU, not your arm. The anti-abortionists are trying to protect the fetus. If you lopped off your own arm, it's unlikely you'd be convicted of a crime (at least, you shouldn't be in an ideal world if for some reason you didn't want an arm anymore) whereas in the anti-abortionist world an abortion would always be illegal, by doctor approval or not.
As for people with brain damage, to a degree, yes, they can certainly be declared to be a "non-person" at certain junctures. Terri Schaivo was dead long before her body died.
Also, I'd like to point out that I said nothing about "simple self-awareness" in the first place.
I'm as pro-abortion as I am "pro-removal of any other organ of your body". At least, until the fetus becomes a person (again, difficult to define, but you can see the difference, no?) as while both are alive, they are biologically alive and not both thinking entities which is often a hidden meaning often used when people speak of "life" regarding the abortion debate.
I think a lot of the abortion debate is people confusing what they mean by "life"...
Abortion, if you're not killing a person (tricky thing to define, I admit, but your arm is alive and removing ('aborting') it is no moral problem and I feel the same way about an unthinking fetus.
I don't understand the arguments that seem to justify murder for the woman's convenience, however, anymore than killing baby after birth for the woman's convenience is acceptable. Even in a future where a fetus can be transplanted into another mother I suspect the "pro-choice" crowd will insist that the mother can still choose to abort it.
Likewise, with anonymity, I think it's one of the best parts about the internet. It's hardly unfortunate that it makes it difficult for governments to track down dissenters, etc. Sure, people use it for bad things as well, but that's true of ANY freedom. Might as well suggest that "free speech is unfortunate thing that people should still have the right to." People will 'abuse' free speech in other different ways but it's still inherently a good thing.
Many people feel the government should remain neutral to the political parties. They exist, but the workings of the government should not serve to favor them. You use this as an example of trying to suggest that it's "OK" but to me it sounds more like even more of a reason to restrict usage of the .gov TLD even more.
The truthers are nuts, but the "asset-backed currency" people are not necessarily such and most people really have no opinion or idea on what an asset-backed currency entails and what its advantages and/or disadvantages are. To compare truthers with them is more of your political perspective more than them being "crazy."
I have no real opinion on asset-backed currency, myself.
This colin guy you linked to, are you saying,
"Will you consider removing "In God We Trust" from our money, given that this violates a true separation between church and state, is unconstitutional in spirit, and is insulting to the ~30 million citizens who choose not to share in this belief."
is a bad idea? I hardly think so! Yet the majority are against it.
Measuring a site based on responses like this is very biased and not representative of what people really think. Given that it's a Democratic website during a Democratic presidency with a Democratic congress I'm guessing that his supporters and such will be visiting far more than McCain supporters or some independents.
Again, it's likely we'll be seeing answers only to questions that aren't controversial or potentially damaging. It's their turf, they chose the questions, they are going to answer softball questions that probably address mostly basic platform issues and nothing more.
Where did I say that?
Questions can be both marked up/down AND moderated. I was discussing moderation only. You think the only moderation mechanism is going to be marking up/down? Please.
Pretty much.