Homicide rate in Canada (guns not allowed) 1.83/100k
Huh? Where did you get the idea that Canada doesn't allow citizens to own guns? If anything, the fact that Canada has such a low homicide rate compared to the US while both allow private gun ownership shows that guns aren't really the problem, assholes that wanna kill people is the problem.
Dude, that did happen -- the Civil War. And Christians did not turn into terrorists. So save your false equivalences.
You've never heard of the Ku Klux Klan? It didn't start in SC, but Tennessee. And they didn't blow themselves up. Other than that, copponex was pretty spot on.
See, the thing is, you are an exception. Yes, some people can achieve remarkably above what one might expect, given their circumstances. Most achieve rather less. It is irresponsible to structure basic societal needs (which I believe widespread education to be) around what the exceptional few can accomplish. The fact that some few people have exceptionally high alcohol tolerances and/or driving skill doesn't mean we should implement the legal limit with them in mind.
I am pretty liberal; a good friend of mine is rather conservative. During the Bush years, we had....interesting discussions. He on more than one occasion made the statement that "Bush is the best President since Reagan!". He is now appropriately embarrassed by that.
The 2nd amendment also codifies an absolute, personal, right of Americans to own any arms (but not munitions).
I realize this is completely off-topic, but you seem like a good person to ask. Where does the idea that the 2nd amendment codifies the right to bear any arms come from? It seems a perfectly valid interpretation to say it merely prevents the banning of all arms; as long as citizens are permitted some arms, the amendment seems to me to be satisfied.
I think it is more general than that - people get upset whenever anyone that isn't them gets positive special treatment, and applaud whenever anyone that isn't them gets special negative treatment. There are many exceptions to this general rule (people expect celebrities to get special treatment, for instance), but it seems to me to be a basic element of human nature. All things equal, I think people would rather watch others get undeserved "punishment", under the assumption that that asshole probably deserves it for something, than see someone get an undeserved reward. And of course, very few people have a problem with themselves receiving positive special treatment. And there is the whole can of worms as to what constitutes "special" treatment; people in different circumstances should be treated differently. The question is what different treatment is fair to apply to what different sets of circumstances? Ask 1000 people, you'll probably get 1000 different answers.
Summary: people will never agree on what's fair, a system that requires societal norms or popular opinion or anything other than force to ensure equitable treatment is unlikely to succeed (in my cynical opinion).
It is a problem with the system of government. The problem is not that some have too much money. The problem is that some people get special treatment. The solution to the problem of some people being able to buy special treatment is not to limit how much wealth they have, but to work within the rule of law.
As a practical matter, how can you have a system that allows some to have vastly more resources than others, yet make sure they can not use those resources to acquire special treatment? It's all well and good to simply say "work within the rule of law", but that is as meaningless in practical terms as saying "communism works just fine as long as everyone contributes fairly". People are not going to abide by the rule of law if they can step outside those bounds and benefit without negative consequences.
He voices a sentiment that is held by many people who want to take away from the rich, not because those people will be better off after the money is taken from the rich,
Huh? How am I not better off if I take money away from you? There might be a few that just want to take from the rich and burn it, but I think most people want to take from the rich and keep it for themselves. Maybe this is right, maybe this is wrong, but it isn't motivated by what you say.
Do they have the right to tell you what to eat (or not eat) if you are on government paid health care for diabetes? Do they have the power to decide what you can spend your food stamps on? Do they have the power to outline the nutritional guidelines publicly funded school lunch programs must follow? Maybe you disagree with any or all of these, but I don't think it's "pretty clear" that they are wrong, and I think one could easily argue they fall under the government "telling you what to eat".
Re:Don't f* with the IT guy like at restaurant you
on
Child Porn As a Weapon
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Ok, that's just ridiculous. If I am legally allowed to have sex with a person, I should be legally allowed to view them having sex (I'm not really into blindfolds). I have never heard and can not imagine a justification for this legal distinction.
and other nonsense like saying I was eating too much food at lunchtime. She then used these false claims to file for breach of contract and terminated me.
What the hell do you do that you are contractually constrained to a lunch-time food limit?!
Re:Don't f* with the IT guy like at restaurant you
on
Child Porn As a Weapon
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The point is that legally speaking, there is no such thing as an underaged person voluntarily participating in a sexual act. They are legally too young to have the capacity to consent. A 15 year old consenting to a 40 year old is seen (legally) as impossible. The generally accepted theory being that a 15 year old is going to be so naive and manipulable by a person of much greater experience that there can not be true consent. Is this always true? No. Can this also be true with people of legal age? Yes. But the law has to draw a line somewhere. And while less harmful than physical force, emotionally manipulating someone who is unready for it into sex is still harmful to that person. As a society, we have decided this is a harm from which we wish to legally protect persons under a certain age (who are seen as being more vulnerable to this).
I don't really know what the people calling for a "cure" mean by that, I just doubt it is as mild as presenting the facts then letting people make up their own minds.
If we could get all the religionists to convert to Deism, which has no holy books or Commandments, the world would be a much more peaceful place.
I agree; however, I suspect those that call religion a "disease" won't find Deism any less objectionable or ridiculous.
What I meant by my evidence snark is simply that the fundamental atheists attack religion b/c it can't provide any evidence in support of it's beliefs. But most religious people I have spoken to have had personal religious experiences they point to as a source of their belief. This is not scientifically rigorous evidence, obviously, but simply stating "Your evidence doesn't meet our criteria" is hardly going to convince someone their personal experiences are invalid.
Basically, I find both sides ridiculous. Religionists gets all whiny b/c people do perfectly harmless things that GOD SAID NOT TO. And atheists get all self-righteous b/c religionists refuse to apply standards of evidence to their personal beliefs that the atheists almost never apply to their own beliefs (probably my biggest pet peeve in the whole affair).
It could either mean coercion, or it could just mean trying to provide information and let people make their own decision.
Somehow, I have my doubts that people that refer to a belief as a disease are simply concerned that the "infected" just haven't ever been presented with the idea that their religion might be wrong and once we point out to everyone that God (or whatever) probably doesn't exist and in fact there is no evidence* for his existence, then we can just sit back and let them make their own decision. And if they still decide their belief makes sense, well that's fine then.
*by evidence, we mean evidence we will accept, not your personal experiences. After all, we didn't experience that, so you're probably just making it up.
that Reality Exists and is consistent and can be measured and there are patterns that our primate brains can process and that everything can fit in them.
You assert that everything that exists is A) consistent (except for the boundary conditions we've already discovered, I assume) B) measurable by human observation (even use of tools eventually requires them to translate measurements into human observable data) and C) understandable by human intellect. Just so you know, that IS a rather extraordinary claim for which there is little to no supporting evidence.
The actual impact of science is irrelevant to the "science is a disease" idea. Or not more than the impact on the Black Plagues. Yes, it influenced history, of course - so did the plague. science is a chronic disease, though.
And yes, it's a mental illness. It's, at its core, the delusion that inherently flawed observation can unravel all the secrets of the universe . It makes infected people have something in their view of reality that is WRONG. Their mental model of the universe contains false information.
It is really amazing to me how the rantings of both sides so perfectly mirror each other. Both sides insisting they are right BECAUSE THE OTHER SIDE IS WRONG! And while my side my not be 100% correct, I find value and utility in my beliefs, whereas I find yours to be useless. Actually, that last is more for the atheists than deists; most religious folks acknowledge the practical uses of science, they just don't find that it addresses the same needs as religion.
Physical format strengths include:
Underling passages, making notes in the margin, fulfills my desire to hoard (a filled bookshelf is much more satisfying than a filled Palm), ease of lending to friends (this may become moot if ebooks become ubiquitous), safely read in the tub, don't worry about losing on trips, never run out of batteries (nice for long camping/hiking trips), turning a page is satisfying in a way that scrolling over isn't. I'm sure there are others.
This isn't to say that physical is superior to electronic, just different. I hope the obvious advantages to authors of distributing ebooks doesn't convince most of them to forgo physical publishing. One is not a substitute for the other.
I don't think ebooks will do away with physical books (and I certainly hope not). The difference between reading an ebook and a physical book is so great as to make them different products in my mind. I would guess that ~75% of books I have read electronically, I ended up purchasing physical copies for the re-read.
You can marry your first cousin in several states . Genetically speaking, it doesn't seem to be a problem.
Age of consent in NC is 18, 16 with parental permission . Younger than that can be licensed for reasons of pregnancy. This looks fairly standard amongst most states.
Re:854,000 people currently holding a TS clearance
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 1
Man, you're in for a world of hurt if one of those secret clearances really IS named "QizBang".
Rational adults compromise in terms of mutual consent, not tyranny, whether of the majority or otherwise
How exactly would this work, in terms of structuring a society? I can't imagine a society where every single member agrees on all aspects of that society. People are gonna disagree, often in mutually exclusive ways. Not to mention, what do you do, renegotiate everything every time a new member of society reaches legal age? How do you build a society that doesn't involve some level of coercion?
Slashdot Mirror
Homicide rate in Canada (guns not allowed) 1.83/100k
Huh? Where did you get the idea that Canada doesn't allow citizens to own guns? If anything, the fact that Canada has such a low homicide rate compared to the US while both allow private gun ownership shows that guns aren't really the problem, assholes that wanna kill people is the problem.
Dude, that did happen -- the Civil War. And Christians did not turn into terrorists. So save your false equivalences.
You've never heard of the Ku Klux Klan? It didn't start in SC, but Tennessee. And they didn't blow themselves up. Other than that, copponex was pretty spot on.
the girl I talked to when my wife was away with friends
I hope your wife doesn't know your slashnick....
See, the thing is, you are an exception. Yes, some people can achieve remarkably above what one might expect, given their circumstances. Most achieve rather less. It is irresponsible to structure basic societal needs (which I believe widespread education to be) around what the exceptional few can accomplish. The fact that some few people have exceptionally high alcohol tolerances and/or driving skill doesn't mean we should implement the legal limit with them in mind.
I am pretty liberal; a good friend of mine is rather conservative. During the Bush years, we had....interesting discussions. He on more than one occasion made the statement that "Bush is the best President since Reagan!". He is now appropriately embarrassed by that.
The 2nd amendment also codifies an absolute, personal, right of Americans to own any arms (but not munitions).
I realize this is completely off-topic, but you seem like a good person to ask. Where does the idea that the 2nd amendment codifies the right to bear any arms come from? It seems a perfectly valid interpretation to say it merely prevents the banning of all arms; as long as citizens are permitted some arms, the amendment seems to me to be satisfied.
I think it is more general than that - people get upset whenever anyone that isn't them gets positive special treatment, and applaud whenever anyone that isn't them gets special negative treatment. There are many exceptions to this general rule (people expect celebrities to get special treatment, for instance), but it seems to me to be a basic element of human nature. All things equal, I think people would rather watch others get undeserved "punishment", under the assumption that that asshole probably deserves it for something, than see someone get an undeserved reward. And of course, very few people have a problem with themselves receiving positive special treatment. And there is the whole can of worms as to what constitutes "special" treatment; people in different circumstances should be treated differently. The question is what different treatment is fair to apply to what different sets of circumstances? Ask 1000 people, you'll probably get 1000 different answers.
Summary: people will never agree on what's fair, a system that requires societal norms or popular opinion or anything other than force to ensure equitable treatment is unlikely to succeed (in my cynical opinion).
It is a problem with the system of government. The problem is not that some have too much money. The problem is that some people get special treatment. The solution to the problem of some people being able to buy special treatment is not to limit how much wealth they have, but to work within the rule of law.
As a practical matter, how can you have a system that allows some to have vastly more resources than others, yet make sure they can not use those resources to acquire special treatment? It's all well and good to simply say "work within the rule of law", but that is as meaningless in practical terms as saying "communism works just fine as long as everyone contributes fairly". People are not going to abide by the rule of law if they can step outside those bounds and benefit without negative consequences.
He voices a sentiment that is held by many people who want to take away from the rich, not because those people will be better off after the money is taken from the rich,
Huh? How am I not better off if I take money away from you? There might be a few that just want to take from the rich and burn it, but I think most people want to take from the rich and keep it for themselves. Maybe this is right, maybe this is wrong, but it isn't motivated by what you say.
Except for the ones that fell b/c the people at the bottom of a huge socioeconomic gap got all murderous on the wealthy elites....
Do they have the right to tell you what to eat (or not eat) if you are on government paid health care for diabetes? Do they have the power to decide what you can spend your food stamps on? Do they have the power to outline the nutritional guidelines publicly funded school lunch programs must follow? Maybe you disagree with any or all of these, but I don't think it's "pretty clear" that they are wrong, and I think one could easily argue they fall under the government "telling you what to eat".
Ok, that's just ridiculous. If I am legally allowed to have sex with a person, I should be legally allowed to view them having sex (I'm not really into blindfolds). I have never heard and can not imagine a justification for this legal distinction.
and other nonsense like saying I was eating too much food at lunchtime. She then used these false claims to file for breach of contract and terminated me.
What the hell do you do that you are contractually constrained to a lunch-time food limit?!
The point is that legally speaking, there is no such thing as an underaged person voluntarily participating in a sexual act. They are legally too young to have the capacity to consent. A 15 year old consenting to a 40 year old is seen (legally) as impossible. The generally accepted theory being that a 15 year old is going to be so naive and manipulable by a person of much greater experience that there can not be true consent. Is this always true? No. Can this also be true with people of legal age? Yes. But the law has to draw a line somewhere. And while less harmful than physical force, emotionally manipulating someone who is unready for it into sex is still harmful to that person. As a society, we have decided this is a harm from which we wish to legally protect persons under a certain age (who are seen as being more vulnerable to this).
Heh, someone forgot his sarcasm tag....
I don't really know what the people calling for a "cure" mean by that, I just doubt it is as mild as presenting the facts then letting people make up their own minds.
If we could get all the religionists to convert to Deism, which has no holy books or Commandments, the world would be a much more peaceful place.
I agree; however, I suspect those that call religion a "disease" won't find Deism any less objectionable or ridiculous.
What I meant by my evidence snark is simply that the fundamental atheists attack religion b/c it can't provide any evidence in support of it's beliefs. But most religious people I have spoken to have had personal religious experiences they point to as a source of their belief. This is not scientifically rigorous evidence, obviously, but simply stating "Your evidence doesn't meet our criteria" is hardly going to convince someone their personal experiences are invalid.
Basically, I find both sides ridiculous. Religionists gets all whiny b/c people do perfectly harmless things that GOD SAID NOT TO. And atheists get all self-righteous b/c religionists refuse to apply standards of evidence to their personal beliefs that the atheists almost never apply to their own beliefs (probably my biggest pet peeve in the whole affair).
It could either mean coercion, or it could just mean trying to provide information and let people make their own decision.
Somehow, I have my doubts that people that refer to a belief as a disease are simply concerned that the "infected" just haven't ever been presented with the idea that their religion might be wrong and once we point out to everyone that God (or whatever) probably doesn't exist and in fact there is no evidence* for his existence, then we can just sit back and let them make their own decision. And if they still decide their belief makes sense, well that's fine then.
*by evidence, we mean evidence we will accept, not your personal experiences. After all, we didn't experience that, so you're probably just making it up.
that Reality Exists and is consistent and can be measured and there are patterns that our primate brains can process and that everything can fit in them.
You assert that everything that exists is A) consistent (except for the boundary conditions we've already discovered, I assume) B) measurable by human observation (even use of tools eventually requires them to translate measurements into human observable data) and C) understandable by human intellect. Just so you know, that IS a rather extraordinary claim for which there is little to no supporting evidence.
The actual impact of science is irrelevant to the "science is a disease" idea. Or not more than the impact on the Black Plagues. Yes, it influenced history, of course - so did the plague. science is a chronic disease, though. And yes, it's a mental illness. It's, at its core, the delusion that inherently flawed observation can unravel all the secrets of the universe . It makes infected people have something in their view of reality that is WRONG. Their mental model of the universe contains false information.
It is really amazing to me how the rantings of both sides so perfectly mirror each other. Both sides insisting they are right BECAUSE THE OTHER SIDE IS WRONG! And while my side my not be 100% correct, I find value and utility in my beliefs, whereas I find yours to be useless. Actually, that last is more for the atheists than deists; most religious folks acknowledge the practical uses of science, they just don't find that it addresses the same needs as religion.
Atheists are only asking for evidence of a God.
If I can remember all the way to the top of this thread, some of them are also suggesting we "cure" religious folks of their "disease".
Physical format strengths include: Underling passages, making notes in the margin, fulfills my desire to hoard (a filled bookshelf is much more satisfying than a filled Palm), ease of lending to friends (this may become moot if ebooks become ubiquitous), safely read in the tub, don't worry about losing on trips, never run out of batteries (nice for long camping/hiking trips), turning a page is satisfying in a way that scrolling over isn't. I'm sure there are others.
This isn't to say that physical is superior to electronic, just different. I hope the obvious advantages to authors of distributing ebooks doesn't convince most of them to forgo physical publishing. One is not a substitute for the other.
I don't think ebooks will do away with physical books (and I certainly hope not). The difference between reading an ebook and a physical book is so great as to make them different products in my mind. I would guess that ~75% of books I have read electronically, I ended up purchasing physical copies for the re-read.
You can marry your first cousin in several states . Genetically speaking, it doesn't seem to be a problem.
Age of consent in NC is 18, 16 with parental permission . Younger than that can be licensed for reasons of pregnancy. This looks fairly standard amongst most states.
Man, you're in for a world of hurt if one of those secret clearances really IS named "QizBang".
Rational adults compromise in terms of mutual consent, not tyranny, whether of the majority or otherwise
How exactly would this work, in terms of structuring a society? I can't imagine a society where every single member agrees on all aspects of that society. People are gonna disagree, often in mutually exclusive ways. Not to mention, what do you do, renegotiate everything every time a new member of society reaches legal age? How do you build a society that doesn't involve some level of coercion?