Atheist have no excuse for not living life to the fullest. We also don't find ourselves on our deathbeds thinking "wow, I wasted my whole life worshiping an imaginary sky fairy!"
No wonder theists suddenly want more life.
"Very few have ever thought seriously about the question"
Maybe because it is not really a question, but a false dilemma fallacy, and they find your jumping to the God conclusion a good example of someone not thinking things through very well.
"I say hammer the juror whose misbehavior requires a mistrial--with very steep civil and criminal penalties."
Ok, this will require a trial. With more jurors. Who will misbehave. Requiring more trials....
"How do you deal with jurors that decide to do their own investigating at home? "
The same way you deal with jurors made up their mind before the trial, and refuse to weight the evidence.
"There are no restrictions on you contacting him after the trial is finished right? Couldn't you send him a letter and tell him to appeal."
Using the money he saved by having an public defender the first time, and the rent and health insurance saved by being in state prison, I suppose.
You can only appeal an error in the trial. You cannot appeal because you did not or could not put on an adequate defense.
The "bull" is your assumptions on how juries actually work, regardless on the judges instructions. Jurors often make up their minds before the trial, paying no attention to evidence. Jurors talk about the case with their friends, and hide relevant facts from the judge. Once you are sent to deliberate, you find an enormous amount of "outside information" is being used. The Internet allows for quick correction of bogus information, and gives perspective to the manipulated truth presented by the legal process.
The defendant claimed he had knowledge of some of the facts of the case because he had seen it on television. The prosecution, through a police officers testimony, claimed that the specific information could not have been in the television report, because TV crews were "kept back".
I, however had seen the same report as the defendant, and had the same memory of the evidence as the defendant. The public defender was out of investigative money (in my county they are give a flat amount, if they exhaust it, too bad). I did not violate the judges instructions to not use outside info by retrieving the video on-line, instead I asked a question in writing, that woke up the public defender, who did it instead. At this point, the floodgates were opened, the police began having to retract most of their testimony (which was fabricated).
A couple of months later, a judged kicked 2 yrs worth of convictions on a number of people arrested in the same "gang crackdown", citing police misconduct.
Having served on several juries, a number of misconceptions need to be cleared up:
You can ask questions. The judge may not like it, but if you submit it properly, do not discuss it with fellow jurors, it might be allowed. The right question can completely screw things up for the prosecution or defense, so you will not be thanked.
Juries violate all sorts of instructions all the time, and outside info is part of the game. Getting outside information puts pressure on the legal system to do things right, and they don't like that. I do not recommend causing a mistrial, but at the same time, a juror cannot be expected to remove their brain will serving.
During one trial that I was a juror for, the prosecution put on a police officer who stated something that was patently not true. The freeware public defender did not challenge it. I was faced with a dilemma -- quickly verify my correct knowledge (just in case I remembered wrong) or go with the police testimony, and convict an innocent man.
Well, actually jurors can ask questions. I have done it, and it changed the course of the trial.
The judge does not have to allow the question though, and in my case, a stern lecture was administered.
Vaccine damages are paid to those whose own genetics have created a situation where (in this case vaccines) an outside agent cause an adverse reaction.
The vaccination payout fund is a way to keep the population immunized, knowing some people have a problem with vaccines.
It is politics, not science.
Read the article. No evidence at all the vaccination caused the death.
Not vaccinating your children endangers others. You have not evidence at all the allergic reaction was caused by the shot, it could have simple been stress.
Vaccinations given during the first year are for disease that are not prevented by the mother's immune system.
If your children give an infant under 1 year, a fatal case of measles, what justification will you give? That your children don't like injections?
Not sure where to start!
HPV vaccine is safe, and prevents cancer. Do have evidence otherwise? Why would anyone want a preventable cancer to infect their children?
Do you have evidence that drug companies engage in a conspiracy to do whatever it is you think they do?
Is your anecdote informative in any way? You described a common reaction to injections by those with needle-phobia.
Avoiding vaccination kills people, especially children. That is a fact. When parents do not get their children vaccinated, they endanger others without reason.
Those who do not vaccinate are parasites, staying healthy from the herd immunity obtained by others vaccinating.
...My geography class starts out with the Big Bang, as does my world history class...
Your private school curriculum may b
benefit from a review by people with one foot in reality. The Big Bang theory is course well supported by the evidence, but has no place in a geography or world history class.
Your school appears to reflect the incredible lack of standards and oversight found in most private schools.
...I'm intelligent enough not to write off someone else's opinions just because they conflict with my own...
But not intelligent enough to be able to discern the difference between opinions based on evidence and opinions based on ignorance?
"People of faith" are not fighting back, they are attempting to maintain there dominance in the culture. The only fight here is the fight to teach science even when it is opposition to religious myths.
Science teachers do not tell students that they are stupid, but they do show how ID is not scientific.
I have noticed that no one even attempts to defend the actions of the current administration anymore. What I am waiting for now is the lame of excuses of those who voted for this administration, especially the second time when it was quite clear what was going on.
Putting solar panels on every roof sounds great, but it ignores the fact that energy generation is only part of the equation -- the power grid still needs to be maintained (you do want power when the sun isn't shining don't you?) Without power grid subsidization, individual power bills will be just as high with solar panels on your house. Try convincing people to pony up $25K for a solar energy system that will not decrease their monthly power bill. And what kind of power plant can be brought on line quickly for peak demand when the solar is not enough? As far as I know, only a nuclear fission plant.
If you like the fake dog idea, I recommend a recording of the ear splitting siren like howl of a Cocker Spaniel. It is a noise that will wake the dead, and they only make it when panicked, like the approach of a stranger.
...Evolution is really good at explaining how butterflies change color overtime, it does not explain how you get from paramecium to human does that not leave room for some alternate theories? This is exactly what random mutation w/ natural selection is good at explaining! That is why it is one of greatest scientific theories ever validated.
The fact that small changes can accumulate over time to give rise to complex species is predicted by the theory, and confirmed by all the evidence.
Is there any competent musician who did not learn technique by listening to an copying the work of others? Is this not a form of studying to learn an art? And isn't a guitar or drum tab merely personal notes on a subject? Is the real issue the tab, or the posting of the tab on the internet.
If I am learning to paint, is an attempt to duplicate the work of a master copyright infringement? I am not attempting to forge the work -- just studying technique. This is what tabs are used for -- to learn musical technique. It is already clear that public performance of a musical work is governed by organizations such as ASCAP.
I believe it is becoming clear that copyright law in the U.S. no longer serves to benefit the originator of intellectual property -- it is for the benefit of corporations and their attorney.
Slashdot Mirror
Atheist have no excuse for not living life to the fullest. We also don't find ourselves on our deathbeds thinking "wow, I wasted my whole life worshiping an imaginary sky fairy!" No wonder theists suddenly want more life.
"Very few have ever thought seriously about the question" Maybe because it is not really a question, but a false dilemma fallacy, and they find your jumping to the God conclusion a good example of someone not thinking things through very well.
"I say hammer the juror whose misbehavior requires a mistrial--with very steep civil and criminal penalties." Ok, this will require a trial. With more jurors. Who will misbehave. Requiring more trials....
"How do you deal with jurors that decide to do their own investigating at home? " The same way you deal with jurors made up their mind before the trial, and refuse to weight the evidence.
"There are no restrictions on you contacting him after the trial is finished right? Couldn't you send him a letter and tell him to appeal." Using the money he saved by having an public defender the first time, and the rent and health insurance saved by being in state prison, I suppose. You can only appeal an error in the trial. You cannot appeal because you did not or could not put on an adequate defense.
Tell that to every innocent person released from death row after 10 or 15 years.
The "bull" is your assumptions on how juries actually work, regardless on the judges instructions. Jurors often make up their minds before the trial, paying no attention to evidence. Jurors talk about the case with their friends, and hide relevant facts from the judge. Once you are sent to deliberate, you find an enormous amount of "outside information" is being used. The Internet allows for quick correction of bogus information, and gives perspective to the manipulated truth presented by the legal process.
The defendant claimed he had knowledge of some of the facts of the case because he had seen it on television. The prosecution, through a police officers testimony, claimed that the specific information could not have been in the television report, because TV crews were "kept back". I, however had seen the same report as the defendant, and had the same memory of the evidence as the defendant. The public defender was out of investigative money (in my county they are give a flat amount, if they exhaust it, too bad). I did not violate the judges instructions to not use outside info by retrieving the video on-line, instead I asked a question in writing, that woke up the public defender, who did it instead. At this point, the floodgates were opened, the police began having to retract most of their testimony (which was fabricated). A couple of months later, a judged kicked 2 yrs worth of convictions on a number of people arrested in the same "gang crackdown", citing police misconduct.
Having served on several juries, a number of misconceptions need to be cleared up: You can ask questions. The judge may not like it, but if you submit it properly, do not discuss it with fellow jurors, it might be allowed. The right question can completely screw things up for the prosecution or defense, so you will not be thanked. Juries violate all sorts of instructions all the time, and outside info is part of the game. Getting outside information puts pressure on the legal system to do things right, and they don't like that. I do not recommend causing a mistrial, but at the same time, a juror cannot be expected to remove their brain will serving. During one trial that I was a juror for, the prosecution put on a police officer who stated something that was patently not true. The freeware public defender did not challenge it. I was faced with a dilemma -- quickly verify my correct knowledge (just in case I remembered wrong) or go with the police testimony, and convict an innocent man.
Well, actually jurors can ask questions. I have done it, and it changed the course of the trial. The judge does not have to allow the question though, and in my case, a stern lecture was administered.
Vaccine damages are paid to those whose own genetics have created a situation where (in this case vaccines) an outside agent cause an adverse reaction. The vaccination payout fund is a way to keep the population immunized, knowing some people have a problem with vaccines. It is politics, not science.
Read the article. No evidence at all the vaccination caused the death. Not vaccinating your children endangers others. You have not evidence at all the allergic reaction was caused by the shot, it could have simple been stress. Vaccinations given during the first year are for disease that are not prevented by the mother's immune system. If your children give an infant under 1 year, a fatal case of measles, what justification will you give? That your children don't like injections?
Not sure where to start! HPV vaccine is safe, and prevents cancer. Do have evidence otherwise? Why would anyone want a preventable cancer to infect their children? Do you have evidence that drug companies engage in a conspiracy to do whatever it is you think they do? Is your anecdote informative in any way? You described a common reaction to injections by those with needle-phobia. Avoiding vaccination kills people, especially children. That is a fact. When parents do not get their children vaccinated, they endanger others without reason. Those who do not vaccinate are parasites, staying healthy from the herd immunity obtained by others vaccinating.
...My geography class starts out with the Big Bang, as does my world history class... Your private school curriculum may b benefit from a review by people with one foot in reality. The Big Bang theory is course well supported by the evidence, but has no place in a geography or world history class. Your school appears to reflect the incredible lack of standards and oversight found in most private schools.
...I'm intelligent enough not to write off someone else's opinions just because they conflict with my own... But not intelligent enough to be able to discern the difference between opinions based on evidence and opinions based on ignorance?
"People of faith" are not fighting back, they are attempting to maintain there dominance in the culture. The only fight here is the fight to teach science even when it is opposition to religious myths. Science teachers do not tell students that they are stupid, but they do show how ID is not scientific.
I have noticed that no one even attempts to defend the actions of the current administration anymore. What I am waiting for now is the lame of excuses of those who voted for this administration, especially the second time when it was quite clear what was going on.
Putting solar panels on every roof sounds great, but it ignores the fact that energy generation is only part of the equation -- the power grid still needs to be maintained (you do want power when the sun isn't shining don't you?) Without power grid subsidization, individual power bills will be just as high with solar panels on your house. Try convincing people to pony up $25K for a solar energy system that will not decrease their monthly power bill. And what kind of power plant can be brought on line quickly for peak demand when the solar is not enough? As far as I know, only a nuclear fission plant.
If you like the fake dog idea, I recommend a recording of the ear splitting siren like howl of a Cocker Spaniel. It is a noise that will wake the dead, and they only make it when panicked, like the approach of a stranger.
...Evolution is really good at explaining how butterflies change color overtime, it does not explain how you get from paramecium to human does that not leave room for some alternate theories? This is exactly what random mutation w/ natural selection is good at explaining! That is why it is one of greatest scientific theories ever validated. The fact that small changes can accumulate over time to give rise to complex species is predicted by the theory, and confirmed by all the evidence.Is there any competent musician who did not learn technique by listening to an copying the work of others? Is this not a form of studying to learn an art? And isn't a guitar or drum tab merely personal notes on a subject? Is the real issue the tab, or the posting of the tab on the internet.
If I am learning to paint, is an attempt to duplicate the work of a master copyright infringement? I am not attempting to forge the work -- just studying technique. This is what tabs are used for -- to learn musical technique. It is already clear that public performance of a musical work is governed by organizations such as ASCAP.
I believe it is becoming clear that copyright law in the U.S. no longer serves to benefit the originator of intellectual property -- it is for the benefit of corporations and their attorney.
Mr. Chabon's new book "Summerland" is also excellent. It is marketed as book for Children/Young Adults, but that just broadens it's appeal.