My bullshit detector is working perfectly fine. In fact, it is going off on your posts.
You are actually arguing that ignoring the extreme of a topic is perfectly fine but not when it's to the side you support. I mean seriously, "if it can't also work taking feedback from others into consideration", do you even think about what you are posting?
Verizon has or had something similar. I came home one evening to find the internet was down (verizon). after calling support, I learned that I was accused of downloading copyrighted materials 3 times and I should have seen an email about it.
After arguing with the tech that I couldn't receive email with my internet shut off, they expanded on the claims. I denied the accusations and stated that no one was at the house at the time of the claimed copyrighted materials BS and that I have no wireless for someone else to access. They eventually turned the internet back on and I found that some RIAA group claimed I had 4 infractions of violating their copyright by downloading the same copyrighted materials 4 times within 2 seconds. The reports were actually within 1 second according to the time stamp made by Verizon's site but their automated BS program logged what it considered a violation 4 times within 2 seconds of downloading Star Trek. After contesting that being on my record, they eventually removed it from my record.
I would expect a lot of issues like this to materialize with this new system.
Well, on the surface, it appears that when people are dismissed out of hand, that their message actually has some importance that for whatever reason the experts do not want to deal with. Now enter conspiracy theory time and focus your efforts on explaining why a scientific theory that doesn't consider information from people because they have associations or have been incorrect in the past is more reliable or justified then conspiracy theories and that the theories are not the same things.
So why do you consider that the truth lies somewhere halfway between people that know what they are doing and people that don't and can say anything they like on the subject without consequence?
I consider the truth to lay in between because extreme people holding extreme positions exaggerate their positions. Expert Fishermen still tell fish stories the same as novice fishermen.
But I do not think anything is said without consequences. The message either stands on it's own or it does not. As long as there are questions to any message, they should be answered not ignored.
So it's come to this - relativism where the message of absolutely anyone, even someone with no background in a field and with a long history of fraud is considered equivalent to the best expert on the planet who can actually provide facts?
I'm not sure I implied it would be equal to a known expert in a field, but it shouldn't not be implicitly unequal or discarded either. Here is the thing, the contents of the message may be right or wrong, part right part wrong, or any combination within. If you ignore the message entirely, you will ignore what's correct if there is something, in spite of things outside the message. Similarly, the expert can be wrong even if to a small degree too. Science implicitly allows for this as it requires any principle of science to be falsifiable. This is even more important when the principle of science is an interpretation of facts and opinions based on those facts as much of Climate change or other theories of science can be.
Your "blind squirrel" analogy is far too cute, I think known wolves attempting to take advantage of blind lambs is a bit closer to the mark:)
In practice, you are probably correct, but do you really want to ignore the blind squirrel? It would be a bit like missing the forest for the trees I guess.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that everyone who objects to the facts or theories is going to be correct in their objections. I'm saying that discarding information because of guilt by association or whatever prejudice you have can lead to incomplete information and perhaps missing the elements needed for a better understanding.
This is why i do not understand the rush to cloud space. The same types of outages that apply to locally hosting the data apply to the cloud space providers. You still need the backup's, disaster plans with the ability to access the servers and such, much of the same stuff if not more then you would need if hosting it yourself. Is the clouds that much cheaper or something? Or is it more about marketing hype that talks PHBs and supervisors who want to sound cool into situations like this where diligence is not necessarily a priority?
Or find the specific gravity of the caulk and starch then place your mixing container on a scale (zeroed out for the weight of the container of course).
If you have disposable spoons, you can measure the weight of a level spoon full then and multiply that against the total amount to be mixed. OF course this is by volume which is what I think you are wanting to do. If a spoon of caulk is 1 oz minus the weight of the spoon, and the amount you squeeze out to your mixing container is 16 ounces, just adjust the weight of the other ingredients by 16 and mix for a 1:1 ratio.
Unless you are just parroting an outright liar like Plimer (or lying yourself) you have just shown that you really have no clue about what either science or religeon is about. It makes not more sense than waterskiing wrapped up in chinese astrology - two completely different things that have nothing at all to do with each other. The historical examples that may have looked like religeon vs science are all instead examples of politics (eg. Galileo vs the Pope, Pentacostals vs mainstream society etc).
Well, that's exactly what it is about. Denying the input of others not because of the content but because of association or delivery of message or overstating the positions and demonizing opposition is about the same and a waterskiing chinese astrologist.
If the messenger makes a living from delivering a message instead of having any stake in whether it is correct or not then that does need to be judged, especially if they have a history of fraud (eg. Moncktons claims of being in the British House of Lords and his claim of discovering the cure for AIDS). Your argument above ignore liars for hire, which gives a free pass for some of the most extreme suggestions in the discussion about climate change.
I learned a long time ago that even a blind squirrel finds a nut. You can approach claims with skepticism based on a history of the messenger, but if you completely dismiss the message, you have the possibility of sitting in the dark and starving to death. If the message itself is merritless, then by all means ignore it, dismiss it, or even bash it. But I maybe I should remind you that effects of water vapor was brought up by skeptics well before they were included in models concerning climate change. Cloud cover, which also traps heat by reflecting it back was a criticism of the catastrophic prediction models and is still trying to be worked into models as we converse about it.
I don't really care who says what, if there isn't an explanation to why it is wrong based on the facts of the message, then there needs to be consideration of what might be right. Often in the extremes of two sides, the truth lays close to the middle of both.
I never thought of it as the degradation of traditional marriage in which hetero men might want to assimilate the promiscuous male cross overs into their roles. That certainly is somewhat of a counter to the traditional marriage and has been a large ground for divorce in the past.
But I think you are over thinking the mother and father bit. You are right that gay couples will adopt and truthfully, a family of any kind has to be better then an institutional upbringing. But those situations are rare- or a small percentage of the norm when you consider the vast amounts of traditional childbearing. Of course with divorce and otherwise single parents being as common as it is (much larger percent then adoption or alternative methods of creating a baby), perhaps the norm is suboptimal to being with. Hell, even in traditional families with a mother and father, often one of them is a slave to the job and doesn't spend as much time with the kids as they would like.
I think it's sort of foolish to hold out for an ideal world. One where everything can be the best, the most productive, beneficial or whatever label someone wants to put on it. It simply isn't going to happen to a lot of people.
You too must be too young to remember the fanatics who took for faith the most extreme models and whined when the modelers changed their estimates.
Not at all.. I'm not even sure what you point is here either other then to see yourself ramble.
What do you call someone who doesn't put much faith in such variable models?
I would called them smart. Why what do you call them? The problem is that from time and time again, we have found that modeling certain things are simply too complex to implicitly trust long term. Of course you could always just shrug your shoulders and mumble "it looked good on paper"
As for religious, maybe you forget that religion is faith over facts, which fits the AGW pessimists as much as the deniers.
I'm not sure if you are just trolling or if you seriously do not know how wrong you are. There are plenty of religions out there that put faith in fact. Your dismal knowledge of them or attempt to claim anyone who doesn't believe as you do is faith over fact is abhorrent considering what you are pretending to be. Interpretation of facts do not make something else fact and likewise facts can mean different things in different applications or circumstances.
The shear fact that someone can even say what you say shows how unscientific the proponents are in this.
That would explain your religion of believing that all those who say the models suck are deniers.
I'm pretty sure you are trolling now. I have never said anything of the sort and in fact, if I have ever accused anyone of religion, it would be the people walking around claiming the science is settled everything as we know it is fact and no one can dispute that because there is a consensus and you know when people vote on things they aren't experts at they are always right.
It would appear that you fit his spectrum of religion wrapped in science. Argumentative structure is just that, a structure that allows arguments to be put forward. It is the context of the argument that needs to be judged, not the messenger delivering it or even the letterhead at the top of the message.
Models are chosen to determine if the facts mean what you think they mean. Pessimism or optimism is little more then how you view the combination of facts. It really is that simple and will or will not line up with the models as they represent the facts. But to claim that models are not created to support conclusions or hypothesis of facts is like claiming that they are not created at all.
They had moons at one time. It's just that when Pluto got declassed as a planet, Mercury and Venus sent the moons to Pluto to help it get over the shock and disappointment for being treated poorly through no fault of his own.
English law is still a small, relatively recent subset of the much larger institution. You still want to pick and choose your own ideal of what this thing is and make everyone adhere to it.
But it is the law you seem to be disappointed in and want changed. You simply cannot ignore it's history and impose your own over it else you are what you are decrying.
The age-old problem of democracy is that it's two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. That's why the U.S. has a Constitution and Bill of Rights in the first place. Because there are some things that should never, ever be decided by a vote.
You are correct and it appear that being gay or getting married outside of how the representatives decided was the best for the common good is not a protected right in the bill of rights. It is a state issue and the states have their own constitutions to deal with.
People voting on what other people are allowed to do within their own private lives is just pure evil.
Here is where there seems to be a disconnect. Mariage is not private in the least. All marriage records are open to public inspection because you are asking a public entity for a privilege it controls. However, people voting for what other do in their private lives is very much a part of modern society so you are even out of touch with reality on the premise alone. For instance, in oregon or Washington state, they voted in a law that allows for patient assisted suicide. In many local communities, they bar people from building too close to the property line or putting swimming pools in without certain safeguards like gates and locks. In New york, they barred transfats from being added to foods or even being sold to consumers to add themselves, limited the size of soft drinks, Maryland is trying to bar smoking entirely- even within the privacy of your own home. They have always barred brothers and sisters from getting married, most cousins within 3 degrees of relations, and father kids or mother kids from getting married.
You may not think it is right, but it's there and happening.
The only people who should ever have any say in the same-sex marriage issue are same-sex couples who want to marry. I'm sick of the world's religious thinking they get to dictate other people's lives.
Dude, it is society at large, not just religions. Some of this is religion, some is other reasons, some might even be vindictive people who like to watch others suffer.
Well, this is a global issue, not just a U.S. issue, but if you want to limit the discussion to the U.S., then I would point out that the state has had jurisdiction over marriage for as long as there has even been such a thing as the United States. There were state marriage laws before there was even a Federal Constitution.
Well, I error-ed a bit in limiting it to the US. It's the English law the US is modeled after. Marriage in most of Europe and about any country England occupied share the same history in which the government didn't give a squat about it until they started struggling over power and control. I think it was in the 1600's or so when the Marriage became common for the state to be involved.
You do realize that the USA existed before the federal constitution right? And that the constitution was actually the second attempt to outline the federal government? Before the USA was created, you had 13 individual countries who surrendered part of their sovereignty to a federal union in an attempt to manage conflicts between the countries and put a unified face on foreign policy.
Ultimately, this all comes back to my original point about arbitrarily imposing individual biases. You have taken a small, relatively recent subset of the much larger marriage institution, and want to force it on everyone.
No, US law is born of English law and it is a lot older and larger then it appears.
But here is your problem. If it was forced onto everyone by a minority, then through democracy, it could be changed. Almost every time gay marriage is brought up by proposition or voter referendum, it always results in either it being rejected or extra measures being put in place to prevent it from happening. That does not seem to be forcing as you put it. It seems to be the democratic will of the people under the jurisdiction of the governments enforcing the laws.
Unfortunately for you, your narrow view will die out eventually. You're going to lose this fight. A handful of countries have matured to the point of legalizing it, and the rest will, eventually. I expect the more theocratic countries like Iran and the U.S. to be some of the last countries to get with the program, but it will happen. Guaranteed.
Ha.. unfortunately for you, the view you think I hold will be around a lot longer then you think. Why, because people like you cannot debate the issue and instead cry and attempt to insult others when you start losing your arguments. I personally do not care about gay marriage. But you ended up claiming I had narrow views and insinuating countries who do not support your view are not mature. All this will do is turn people away from you and your cause just like when all the flamers come out and "get in your face" turns people against gays. You simply do not win friends and influence the world around you by pissing off the very people you need to gain support from. Too many people like you exist which is why there will always be people, a good amount of them too, who do no want gay marriage.
ve found myself wondering why this issue seems to be so popular all-of-a-sudden--perhaps this is part of it. I find myself quite biased, though, having come out and gotten interested in the whole thing only recently, so I can't speculate very effectively on reasons for increased general interest.
My guess is that it is a strategy they think they can win with. By they, I mean supporters of gay marriage. They probably sat around brainstorming legal strategies for opening marriage up, it passed the smell test, and they ran with it. Of course it might have gained support for other reasons, but my guess is that no one really considered it to be a civil rights issue until it appeared they could get their way with the claim.
I'm sorry (since I like this conversation), but this is just not true, depending on precisely what you meant. Marrying people is perhaps not within the powers of the federal government, but one of DOMA's main aims is to invalidate same-sex marriages for federal purposes, regardless of their recognition by state(s). To give one example, even a married lesbian couple from Massachusetts cannot file a joint federal tax return. There are many, many more. That said, I misspoke. By the phrase "federal civil unions", I just meant federal recognition of civil unions (performed who-knows-where, maybe states, maybe other countries) for the purposes of federal marriage rights and responsibilities.
If I remember correctly, the Defense of Marriage Act was just recently struck down in a lower court case. Anyways, it is a different story saying the federal government does not recognize A in it's dealings, verses saying we are now creating A in substitute for all that the states are not doing.
I lived in California during the Prop. 8 campaign. I suspect gay marriage supporters got somewhat complacent--it's California, after all; you'd just expect it to be legal. The reality is that California is not nearly as liberal as one might think. Some urban centers, notably San Francisco, are, but it's a huge state. This Prop. 8 voting map is instructive. California is certainly not the most gay friendly state either; Massachusetts might be.
You are right, I thought they resumed marrying after prop8 had been voted on but it appears it invalidated the state supreme court's ruling allowing gay marriage in the first place.
A federal judge and a three-judge panel of the relevant appellate court have both found it unconstitutional and those rulings are stayed until review by the Supreme Court. Either SCOTUS will refuse to hear the case next term in which case gay marriage will again be legal in California--this seems highly unlikely to me--or SCOTUS will hear it and rule, possibly at a national level depending on legal specifics--and if the lower courts are any indication, they will rule for gay marriage.
My understanding of the cases that will be in front of the US supreme court is that they are structured in a way that will only effect California law because of the start and stop on gay marriage. But I was wrong on the still doing it so I might be wrong on this.
Next Supreme Court term will be very important for gay marriage in general. DOMA and Prop. 8 challenges will likely be heard and ruled upon. I suspect (hope) 2013 will be the "Brown v. Board of Education"-year for gay marriage.
Even if gay marriage prevails, I do not think it will be even close to a Brown v. Board of Education. The problem is that going to school is mandated by law. Segregating children based on skin color and forcing them to be separate is still a bit different then someone making a choice which no matter how you look at it, marriage is a choice. Now in contrast to brown v. education, private schools can still be segregated and people can choose to send their kids to all black schools or all male schools or all female schools and so on because it is a choice.
I think the entire choice part will burst the bubble of a lot of people.
Actually, I was referring to English law which is the predominate basis for most law in the western world. The state took the marriage away from religion sometime in the 1600s if memory serves me correct.
As far as a subset forcing something on someone, that is exactly how democracy works. Society has a say in it's government and how it governs. When that society is more religious then not, the laws governing that society will be more religiously inclined then not. When society wants to promote it's growth and expansion for wealth and security, it might also have the government make laws restricting who can marry to encourage childbearing and so on.
Whether or not you consider that mature or whatever is beside the point. Society is comfortable with the laws governing them- at least in the marriage part because democracy works sometimes.
That's why this connection to segregation doesn't fit. When it became illegal to have blacks and whites only drinking fountains, all the the blacks or whites only were removed and what was left might have been the original drinking fountain but it wasn't allowed to be blacks or whites only just public drinking fountains.
So according to the same logic where all people, including gays, can drink from the same drinking fountain (marry someone of the opposite sex) doing away with that and giving them a special separate right (marrying someone of the same sex) would be gays only being able to marry gays of the same sex.
It's your attempt at making the connection that doesn't stand on it's own. I suggest you think it through a bit more.
Being gay is not a prerequisite for gay marriage. I fail to see the connection you are trying to make. In fact, it is more like forcing minorities to use the same drinking fountains that everyone else has to use then separate.
Would it be proper in your opinion to legalize gay marriage with the conditions that no gay person could marry a straight person?
You know, I wasn't really thinking of Europe. In the US we have a lot of closet religious people who for some reason act more secular in public and more religious when their peers won't know about it.
There is nothing flawed with my history. The marriage rituals in bumfuckistan or some extinct tribe or culture is not really representative of marriage as we know it in the us today. What we know today is largely the marriage created and controlled by the church. The terms used were largely created about 900 Years after the church got involved with it.
You not being religious or even of the right religion is exactly why government got involved in marriage inside the first place creating the modern precedent for the involvement today. Churches wouldn't marry you and the government decided it would eventually taking the control away from the churches.
Your mistake here is that we are not interested in the history of the world, just the history in which legal precedent gives the current state the legal jurisdiction over marriage. The only answer to that is a carry over of law on which the government took marriage from religion.
Isn't that exactly what you are complaining about? The laws where written when the secular portions of the population was in the minority.
It can easily be said that they still are in the minority when you consider how many citizens claim a belief in creation and or a religion when asked anonymously. The numbers seem to grow quite large when the answer can't be directly tied to them. That is the exact situation with voting.
Isn't everyone being able to do the same thing equal or equality? Marrying someone of the opposition sex would be equality as in the same thing. It isn't even close to divided abilities based on race.
Here are a few other things you can't do when marrying. A brother can't marry his sister. Most places bar marriage between relations closer the third cousins. Are those people being denied equality?
I guess the biggest issue is that most do not see it as a civil rights issue. It hasn't been traditionaly presented as one until recently. Its as if a lite went off in someone's head and all the sudden the claim was made.
You will not see a federal civil union either. Marriage simply is not within the powers of the federal government. If the feds attempt to impose something like that there will be a revolt that will likely cause a constitutional amendment invalidating either the government powers or gay marriage itself. You have to remember that even in California which is probably the most gay friendly state, the voters supported multiple state wide bans on gay marriage. It took not one, but two state supreme court challenges and a federal challenge to make it legal.
First of all, don't call me an idiot, all I did was refer to simple tax information available right there on Wikipedia.
If you do not want to be called an idiot, then please do not act like one. You did so when you started calling Elected Officials by slur names in an attempt to curry favor with delusional partisans.
I said at the very start that I was only speaking about a specific representation of information... it turns out the one I could most easily find. There are a million ways to turn this and anybody can cherry pick facts to justify anything including the sky is falling. I think there is wisdom in all the political positions, The key is looking for what is applicable in today's reality, and keep checking because the world is dynamic and the answers change frequently. As a politician, Clinton was sharp, that doesn't mean I'm a Democratic knee-jerk, I'm not the least bit happy with our current president, and if the Republicans could proffer a candidate that was neither retarded nor deranged I'd honestly consider him (I actually gave Newt a look... warts and all.)
Well, how about we just keep the facts based on reality and not finagled in some way to support a barely legible premise. I was also clear from the start that some taxes are lower but when you look at all of the tax liability including fees, this is not the case.
The problem with your concept of Clinton over republicans is that you are either lacking information, ignoring information, or have preconceived notions and information means little to you. You are right though, Clinton was a smart politician, he was able to take credit for anything that he saw as beneficial and was able to spin anything negative to his advantage. On the down side though, you can say that Clinton's mastery of the situation where he would say or do anything to keep himself looking good, is one of the reasons why politics are in the abysmal partisan state they are in today.
You can't have it both ways, either Clinton cut taxes or his magical surplus was the result of raising taxes... which is it? In fact it was none of the above. The surplus was the result of enhanced revenue from the single largest economic boon in American History... not my words, read for yourself.
I do not need to fit reality into your little false dilemma. The reality is that Clinton raised taxes in 1993 then lowered them for the ultra rich in 1996 when he separate capitol gains from the income tax and set a fixed capital gains rate for holdings help over a year. The only people who were stuck paying Clinton's increased tax rates where the middle class and rich who had no investment income not considered solely capitol gains.
Here is a fact you can bank on too. Taxes do not create or destroy economic booms. They encourage and discourage but so many outside factors are involved that is is pathetic to even hint that tax rates are that powerful. Now, when the economy is struggling, lowering taxes to a point can spur economic activity as it removes or lowers barriers to entry where as raising or increasing taxes at that time can harm economic activity as it increases barriers to entry and removed monetary value from existing investments that would likely be either spent within the economy or invested in a way to spur economic development. When the economy is booming, raising taxes generally doesn't have too much of an impact as the money being made is greater then the fraction being removed. Once the value being harvested from the economy is outweighed by the tax liability, it tends to dampen the economy.
According to your link, the boom of the 1990's actually began March 1991, a year before Clinton took office. That tells a different story then you are.
Now, if you insist on tying the economy onto something, you can tie it to energy costs. Nothing will impact the economy more then energy costs and during Clinton's term as president, energy costs were r
Well, no it isn't just as arbitrary to state people of the opposite sex. A role of government is to encourage the growth and stability of it's population and one way of doing that is by crafting it's laws to encourage behavior like starting a family with two parents.
Now, I will admit that with all the out of wedlock children and how the government treats them the same as in wedlock children, that goal is antiquated and probably negated by now. But it is a legitimate goal of government to attempt to do so.
But you seem to miss my argument entirely. You see, my argument is that marriage is actually a religious device that government got involved in at first to exert power over the church and allow marriages it denied, then to deny marriages like interracial marriages, and finally to disburse property, inheritance rights, and benefits (not necessarily in that order).
If you separate the government's role in marriage and recreate all that comes with it outside of marriage, the religions can have it back and gay marriage won't be necessary outside of those few who want to impose their lifestyle choices into religious institutions (and yes, choosing to get married is a choice).
I don't think we are all that far apart in opinions. Maybe we are just talking past each other and not hearing what is being said.
Slashdot Mirror
My bullshit detector is working perfectly fine. In fact, it is going off on your posts.
You are actually arguing that ignoring the extreme of a topic is perfectly fine but not when it's to the side you support. I mean seriously, "if it can't also work taking feedback from others into consideration", do you even think about what you are posting?
Verizon has or had something similar. I came home one evening to find the internet was down (verizon). after calling support, I learned that I was accused of downloading copyrighted materials 3 times and I should have seen an email about it.
After arguing with the tech that I couldn't receive email with my internet shut off, they expanded on the claims. I denied the accusations and stated that no one was at the house at the time of the claimed copyrighted materials BS and that I have no wireless for someone else to access. They eventually turned the internet back on and I found that some RIAA group claimed I had 4 infractions of violating their copyright by downloading the same copyrighted materials 4 times within 2 seconds. The reports were actually within 1 second according to the time stamp made by Verizon's site but their automated BS program logged what it considered a violation 4 times within 2 seconds of downloading Star Trek. After contesting that being on my record, they eventually removed it from my record.
I would expect a lot of issues like this to materialize with this new system.
Well, on the surface, it appears that when people are dismissed out of hand, that their message actually has some importance that for whatever reason the experts do not want to deal with. Now enter conspiracy theory time and focus your efforts on explaining why a scientific theory that doesn't consider information from people because they have associations or have been incorrect in the past is more reliable or justified then conspiracy theories and that the theories are not the same things.
I consider the truth to lay in between because extreme people holding extreme positions exaggerate their positions. Expert Fishermen still tell fish stories the same as novice fishermen.
But I do not think anything is said without consequences. The message either stands on it's own or it does not. As long as there are questions to any message, they should be answered not ignored.
I'm not sure I implied it would be equal to a known expert in a field, but it shouldn't not be implicitly unequal or discarded either. Here is the thing, the contents of the message may be right or wrong, part right part wrong, or any combination within. If you ignore the message entirely, you will ignore what's correct if there is something, in spite of things outside the message. Similarly, the expert can be wrong even if to a small degree too. Science implicitly allows for this as it requires any principle of science to be falsifiable. This is even more important when the principle of science is an interpretation of facts and opinions based on those facts as much of Climate change or other theories of science can be.
In practice, you are probably correct, but do you really want to ignore the blind squirrel? It would be a bit like missing the forest for the trees I guess.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that everyone who objects to the facts or theories is going to be correct in their objections. I'm saying that discarding information because of guilt by association or whatever prejudice you have can lead to incomplete information and perhaps missing the elements needed for a better understanding.
This is why i do not understand the rush to cloud space. The same types of outages that apply to locally hosting the data apply to the cloud space providers. You still need the backup's, disaster plans with the ability to access the servers and such, much of the same stuff if not more then you would need if hosting it yourself. Is the clouds that much cheaper or something? Or is it more about marketing hype that talks PHBs and supervisors who want to sound cool into situations like this where diligence is not necessarily a priority?
Or find the specific gravity of the caulk and starch then place your mixing container on a scale (zeroed out for the weight of the container of course).
If you have disposable spoons, you can measure the weight of a level spoon full then and multiply that against the total amount to be mixed. OF course this is by volume which is what I think you are wanting to do. If a spoon of caulk is 1 oz minus the weight of the spoon, and the amount you squeeze out to your mixing container is 16 ounces, just adjust the weight of the other ingredients by 16 and mix for a 1:1 ratio.
Well, that's exactly what it is about. Denying the input of others not because of the content but because of association or delivery of message or overstating the positions and demonizing opposition is about the same and a waterskiing chinese astrologist.
I learned a long time ago that even a blind squirrel finds a nut. You can approach claims with skepticism based on a history of the messenger, but if you completely dismiss the message, you have the possibility of sitting in the dark and starving to death. If the message itself is merritless, then by all means ignore it, dismiss it, or even bash it. But I maybe I should remind you that effects of water vapor was brought up by skeptics well before they were included in models concerning climate change. Cloud cover, which also traps heat by reflecting it back was a criticism of the catastrophic prediction models and is still trying to be worked into models as we converse about it.
I don't really care who says what, if there isn't an explanation to why it is wrong based on the facts of the message, then there needs to be consideration of what might be right. Often in the extremes of two sides, the truth lays close to the middle of both.
I never thought of it as the degradation of traditional marriage in which hetero men might want to assimilate the promiscuous male cross overs into their roles. That certainly is somewhat of a counter to the traditional marriage and has been a large ground for divorce in the past.
But I think you are over thinking the mother and father bit. You are right that gay couples will adopt and truthfully, a family of any kind has to be better then an institutional upbringing. But those situations are rare- or a small percentage of the norm when you consider the vast amounts of traditional childbearing. Of course with divorce and otherwise single parents being as common as it is (much larger percent then adoption or alternative methods of creating a baby), perhaps the norm is suboptimal to being with. Hell, even in traditional families with a mother and father, often one of them is a slave to the job and doesn't spend as much time with the kids as they would like.
I think it's sort of foolish to hold out for an ideal world. One where everything can be the best, the most productive, beneficial or whatever label someone wants to put on it. It simply isn't going to happen to a lot of people.
Not at all.. I'm not even sure what you point is here either other then to see yourself ramble.
I would called them smart. Why what do you call them? The problem is that from time and time again, we have found that modeling certain things are simply too complex to implicitly trust long term. Of course you could always just shrug your shoulders and mumble "it looked good on paper"
It would appear that you fit his spectrum of religion wrapped in science. Argumentative structure is just that, a structure that allows arguments to be put forward. It is the context of the argument that needs to be judged, not the messenger delivering it or even the letterhead at the top of the message.
Models are chosen to determine if the facts mean what you think they mean. Pessimism or optimism is little more then how you view the combination of facts. It really is that simple and will or will not line up with the models as they represent the facts. But to claim that models are not created to support conclusions or hypothesis of facts is like claiming that they are not created at all.
They had moons at one time. It's just that when Pluto got declassed as a planet, Mercury and Venus sent the moons to Pluto to help it get over the shock and disappointment for being treated poorly through no fault of his own.
But it is the law you seem to be disappointed in and want changed. You simply cannot ignore it's history and impose your own over it else you are what you are decrying.
You are correct and it appear that being gay or getting married outside of how the representatives decided was the best for the common good is not a protected right in the bill of rights. It is a state issue and the states have their own constitutions to deal with.
Here is where there seems to be a disconnect. Mariage is not private in the least. All marriage records are open to public inspection because you are asking a public entity for a privilege it controls. However, people voting for what other do in their private lives is very much a part of modern society so you are even out of touch with reality on the premise alone. For instance, in oregon or Washington state, they voted in a law that allows for patient assisted suicide. In many local communities, they bar people from building too close to the property line or putting swimming pools in without certain safeguards like gates and locks. In New york, they barred transfats from being added to foods or even being sold to consumers to add themselves, limited the size of soft drinks, Maryland is trying to bar smoking entirely- even within the privacy of your own home. They have always barred brothers and sisters from getting married, most cousins within 3 degrees of relations, and father kids or mother kids from getting married.
You may not think it is right, but it's there and happening.
Dude, it is society at large, not just religions. Some of this is religion, some is other reasons, some might even be vindictive people who like to watch others suffer.
Well, I error-ed a bit in limiting it to the US. It's the English law the US is modeled after. Marriage in most of Europe and about any country England occupied share the same history in which the government didn't give a squat about it until they started struggling over power and control. I think it was in the 1600's or so when the Marriage became common for the state to be involved.
You do realize that the USA existed before the federal constitution right? And that the constitution was actually the second attempt to outline the federal government? Before the USA was created, you had 13 individual countries who surrendered part of their sovereignty to a federal union in an attempt to manage conflicts between the countries and put a unified face on foreign policy.
No, US law is born of English law and it is a lot older and larger then it appears.
But here is your problem. If it was forced onto everyone by a minority, then through democracy, it could be changed. Almost every time gay marriage is brought up by proposition or voter referendum, it always results in either it being rejected or extra measures being put in place to prevent it from happening. That does not seem to be forcing as you put it. It seems to be the democratic will of the people under the jurisdiction of the governments enforcing the laws.
Ha.. unfortunately for you, the view you think I hold will be around a lot longer then you think. Why, because people like you cannot debate the issue and instead cry and attempt to insult others when you start losing your arguments. I personally do not care about gay marriage. But you ended up claiming I had narrow views and insinuating countries who do not support your view are not mature. All this will do is turn people away from you and your cause just like when all the flamers come out and "get in your face" turns people against gays. You simply do not win friends and influence the world around you by pissing off the very people you need to gain support from. Too many people like you exist which is why there will always be people, a good amount of them too, who do no want gay marriage.
My guess is that it is a strategy they think they can win with. By they, I mean supporters of gay marriage. They probably sat around brainstorming legal strategies for opening marriage up, it passed the smell test, and they ran with it. Of course it might have gained support for other reasons, but my guess is that no one really considered it to be a civil rights issue until it appeared they could get their way with the claim.
If I remember correctly, the Defense of Marriage Act was just recently struck down in a lower court case. Anyways, it is a different story saying the federal government does not recognize A in it's dealings, verses saying we are now creating A in substitute for all that the states are not doing.
You are right, I thought they resumed marrying after prop8 had been voted on but it appears it invalidated the state supreme court's ruling allowing gay marriage in the first place.
My understanding of the cases that will be in front of the US supreme court is that they are structured in a way that will only effect California law because of the start and stop on gay marriage. But I was wrong on the still doing it so I might be wrong on this.
Even if gay marriage prevails, I do not think it will be even close to a Brown v. Board of Education. The problem is that going to school is mandated by law. Segregating children based on skin color and forcing them to be separate is still a bit different then someone making a choice which no matter how you look at it, marriage is a choice. Now in contrast to brown v. education, private schools can still be segregated and people can choose to send their kids to all black schools or all male schools or all female schools and so on because it is a choice.
I think the entire choice part will burst the bubble of a lot of people.
Actually, I was referring to English law which is the predominate basis for most law in the western world. The state took the marriage away from religion sometime in the 1600s if memory serves me correct.
As far as a subset forcing something on someone, that is exactly how democracy works. Society has a say in it's government and how it governs. When that society is more religious then not, the laws governing that society will be more religiously inclined then not. When society wants to promote it's growth and expansion for wealth and security, it might also have the government make laws restricting who can marry to encourage childbearing and so on.
Whether or not you consider that mature or whatever is beside the point. Society is comfortable with the laws governing them- at least in the marriage part because democracy works sometimes.
That's why this connection to segregation doesn't fit. When it became illegal to have blacks and whites only drinking fountains, all the the blacks or whites only were removed and what was left might have been the original drinking fountain but it wasn't allowed to be blacks or whites only just public drinking fountains.
So according to the same logic where all people, including gays, can drink from the same drinking fountain (marry someone of the opposite sex) doing away with that and giving them a special separate right (marrying someone of the same sex) would be gays only being able to marry gays of the same sex.
It's your attempt at making the connection that doesn't stand on it's own. I suggest you think it through a bit more.
Being gay is not a prerequisite for gay marriage. I fail to see the connection you are trying to make. In fact, it is more like forcing minorities to use the same drinking fountains that everyone else has to use then separate.
Would it be proper in your opinion to legalize gay marriage with the conditions that no gay person could marry a straight person?
You know, I wasn't really thinking of Europe. In the US we have a lot of closet religious people who for some reason act more secular in public and more religious when their peers won't know about it.
There is nothing flawed with my history. The marriage rituals in bumfuckistan or some extinct tribe or culture is not really representative of marriage as we know it in the us today. What we know today is largely the marriage created and controlled by the church. The terms used were largely created about 900 Years after the church got involved with it.
You not being religious or even of the right religion is exactly why government got involved in marriage inside the first place creating the modern precedent for the involvement today. Churches wouldn't marry you and the government decided it would eventually taking the control away from the churches.
Your mistake here is that we are not interested in the history of the world, just the history in which legal precedent gives the current state the legal jurisdiction over marriage. The only answer to that is a carry over of law on which the government took marriage from religion.
Isn't that exactly what you are complaining about? The laws where written when the secular portions of the population was in the minority.
It can easily be said that they still are in the minority when you consider how many citizens claim a belief in creation and or a religion when asked anonymously. The numbers seem to grow quite large when the answer can't be directly tied to them. That is the exact situation with voting.
It is a little silly to pretend that religion is not a part of society. It is intermingled with the people making up the society.
Isn't everyone being able to do the same thing equal or equality? Marrying someone of the opposition sex would be equality as in the same thing. It isn't even close to divided abilities based on race.
Here are a few other things you can't do when marrying. A brother can't marry his sister. Most places bar marriage between relations closer the third cousins. Are those people being denied equality?
I guess the biggest issue is that most do not see it as a civil rights issue. It hasn't been traditionaly presented as one until recently. Its as if a lite went off in someone's head and all the sudden the claim was made.
You will not see a federal civil union either. Marriage simply is not within the powers of the federal government. If the feds attempt to impose something like that there will be a revolt that will likely cause a constitutional amendment invalidating either the government powers or gay marriage itself. You have to remember that even in California which is probably the most gay friendly state, the voters supported multiple state wide bans on gay marriage. It took not one, but two state supreme court challenges and a federal challenge to make it legal.
Well, no it isn't just as arbitrary to state people of the opposite sex. A role of government is to encourage the growth and stability of it's population and one way of doing that is by crafting it's laws to encourage behavior like starting a family with two parents.
Now, I will admit that with all the out of wedlock children and how the government treats them the same as in wedlock children, that goal is antiquated and probably negated by now. But it is a legitimate goal of government to attempt to do so.
But you seem to miss my argument entirely. You see, my argument is that marriage is actually a religious device that government got involved in at first to exert power over the church and allow marriages it denied, then to deny marriages like interracial marriages, and finally to disburse property, inheritance rights, and benefits (not necessarily in that order).
If you separate the government's role in marriage and recreate all that comes with it outside of marriage, the religions can have it back and gay marriage won't be necessary outside of those few who want to impose their lifestyle choices into religious institutions (and yes, choosing to get married is a choice).
I don't think we are all that far apart in opinions. Maybe we are just talking past each other and not hearing what is being said.