Profile for Kelandon


Recent posts

Pages

AuthorRecent posts
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #229
"Handicapped parking spots is not discrimination - not this definition. Here’s why: All handicapped people have a disability. This is true for every single case. Having a disability merits (not in the sense that it’s earned, but that society says it entitles) special treatment. It’s been discussed, thought over, and legislated because it makes us a kinder society and/or whatever other reasons there are."

"All-white schools is not discrimination - not this definition. Here’s why: All white people are superior. This is true for every single case. Being superior merits (not in the sense that it’s earned, but that society says it entitles) special treatment. It’s been discussed, thought over, and legislated because it makes us a kinder society and/or whatever other reasons there are."

This is simply the point that Thuryl made, but I thought it was worth underscoring. If this argument structure is valid, it leads to unacceptable conclusions.

The flaw in your argument is that it presumes, without providing adequate justification, that society cannot decide to discriminate.

Personally, I'd much rather work with the real (broad) definition of discrimination and not have to risk arguments hinging on the ambiguity in a key term.

[ Wednesday, December 12, 2007 17:40: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #222
quote:
Originally written by Condition:

Discrimination is acceptable when the good it does outweighs the harm it does.
Yes, this is probably a nicer simplification. It was where I was going first, but I didn't quite end up there for some reason.

It might be worth adding that this is an "if and only if" sort of situation. Discrimination is not acceptable under any other circumstances than when we can say for sure that the good will outweigh the bad.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #219
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Giving male-female pairing special status over all other relationships is not prejudice because marriage has a stabilizing effect, produces children, provides an ideal environment for raising them, etc., so it has a known, age-old, unique benefit to society.
The fact that opposite-sex marriage does this does not in any show that same-sex marriage does not. Without evidence, we have to choose not to discriminate (because to do otherwise is evidence of prejudice).

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #215
quote:
I agree that some of the figures would indicate the possibility that any two parents can duplicate certain effects, but the ones that mention marriage and certainly every one of the benefits for the mates are only known for traditional marriage. It does not necessarily follow that same-sex partners would experience the same benefits.
We don't know that they wouldn't based on those statistics either. You've managed to equivocate far more than anyone else here by bringing up data that has no actual relevance and pretending that it does. (Well, except what Alo said.)

quote:
After all, we have determined that same-sex and opposite-sex unions are fundamentally different.
We have not.

quote:
we’ve established that there are two types of discrimination. One is based on merit, the other is based on prejudicial grouping.
We have not. I granted that one was for differently-abled people, which cannot be summarized by the word "merit."

quote:
When most people see a handicapped spot, they don’t think it’s ‘discriminating against’ them, they think, “This spot is only for handicapped people because they merit special consideration.”
Whether they think this or not, they may not be right, and they may not be thinking of all the ramifications. This is not evidence, even if it is true.

quote:
Gay marriage and traditional marriage are unequal in fundamental, natural ways.
This has not been demonstrated.

quote:
Are we disagreeing that comparing encouragement and protection for traditional marriage or handicapped parking to racism and sexism qualifies as equivocation? It sure does seem like we are because many have been doing the same thing since the beginning of this discussion regardless of the fact that keep pointing it out. It’s a logical fallacy.
You have asserted this, but no one agrees with you.

To remind you of my standing argument, which you have at this point begun to ignore: Discrimination is not justified unless 1) it is done to accomodate differently-abled people, one way or another, or 2) it can be shown to be significantly beneficial or prevent serious harm. Not allowing same-sex marriage is discrimination against gay people, and it fits into neither category of justified discrimination. Therefore it is unjustified and wrong.

You took issue with the second sentence, to which I responded, "Discriminating in favor of one thing is discriminating against everything else. Discrimination in favor of opposite-sex marriage is discrimination against same sex marriage." You have yet to respond.

[ Wednesday, December 12, 2007 09:01: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #200
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

The discrimination is not against gay marriage any more than handicapped parking spots discriminate against parents with toddlers. It is discrimination in favor of paired man-woman marriage.
Discriminating in favor of one thing is discriminating against everything else. Discrimination in favor of opposite-sex marriage is discrimination against same sex marriage.

As Thuryl and Diki pointed out, your "advantages" are benefits of couple-hood over being single, not benefits of opposite-sex marriage over same-sex marriage. If anything, they support the notion that same-sex marriage should be permitted.

[ Tuesday, December 11, 2007 21:19: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Incorporating Walkthroughs in Scenarios in Blades of Avernum
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #2
Well, you could give options about the degree of specificity of the help ("Select one of the following: 1 — A hint 2 — Specific instructions about completing the quest 3 — Cancel").

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #191
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I disagree with premise 1. I don’t think handicapped spots are necessary for the survival of the disabled, but I don’t think they’re unjust.
A fair objection. Perhaps the word should be "beneficial," not "necessary."

I wonder if perhaps the analogy to handicapped parking spaces (or left-handed scissors, or...) functions differently than the analogy to racism or sexism. Both are appropriate, but in different ways. The latter is discrimination on the basis of who you were born as, whereas the former is discrimination on the basis of what you are capable of doing. Both apply to homosexuality, but in different ways. Society is well-accustomed to making accomodations on the basis of different abilities (hence, left-handed scissors), and we are now becoming adjusted to neglecting that some people are demographically different in unimportant ways.

Well, come to think of it, issues regarding maternity leave cut across both categories.

But perhaps one might say that discrimination is not justified unless 1) it is done to accomodate differently-abled people, one way or another, or 2) it can be shown to be significantly beneficial or prevent serious harm. I think that about covers it. Handicapped parking spaces fit under the first condition. Polygamy fits under the second. Gay marriage doesn't fit under either.

[quote]
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Released: Blades Forge in Blades of Avernum Editor
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #7
I get the same error.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #189
quote:
Originally written by Archmagus Micael:

Sure, they can claim certain benefits,
As far as the government is concerned, that's what marriage actually is. Nothing more, nothing less.

quote:
it makes both people property of one-another,
No, you're confusing it with another, possibly related, institution: slavery. In no way is a wife the property of her husband, nor is a husband in any way property of his wife. They have certain obligations to each other, for sure. But this is different.

quote:
and gets their names down on some church role somewhere as being technically "together".
Uh, no, it doesn't do that. People can be married completely independently of a church. Head down to city hall. Get married by a justice of the peace or something. No church required.
quote:
Originally written by Fernication:

I think part of the confusion stems from different uses of "discrimination" -- it can be used just to indicate making a rational distinction between two different things, or it can be used to indicate making an irrational, prejudiced decision based on a personal quality.
I've been using the word "discrimination" in its broader, literal sense, but confining it to the legal arena. In that regard, discrimination in the first sense on the basis of anything not strictly necessary becomes discrimination in the second sense. That is, unnecessary discrimination is unjust. (I take that as an axiom, by the way; Stillness has yet to respond to its role in the argument: unnecessary discrimination is unjust. Marriage discrimination against homosexual people is unnecessary. Therefore, marriage discrimination against homosexual people is unjust.)

Also, Thuryl might not agree with your summary.
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:
Saying that there is no harm to recognizing other kinds of marriage tells us nothing.
On the contrary, it tells us everything. When discriminating causes harm and not discriminating does not, the preference should always be for not discriminating.

[ Tuesday, December 11, 2007 09:35: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #169
quote:
Originally written by Norwegian Playwright Henry Gibson:

quote:
If you think that homosexuals, the polyamorous, and whoever else should have their unions recognized in the same way, THAT IS YOUR OPINION. You are entitled to try to legislate it if you please, just like I’m entitled to try to make the neighborhood I want to build in an empowerment zone. But to say that a certain law is bad solely on the basis that it discriminates is not accurate.
Sure it is. Discrimination is bad. What makes some discriminating laws good is their other effects. You haven't provided positive effects for preventing same-sex marriage.

quote:
Claiming that one person is hurt because another person gets favor is also off. If the government gives tuition assistance to a soldier, does that hurt the person with a handicap who can’t join the armed forces?
Tuition assistance in this case is a perk/payment for services rendered. An individual does something to earn the assistance. Like any job, preventing the handicapped from joining the armed forces is not permitted unless it's not possible for them to do work.

I was going to respond to Stillness, but my response would've been almost exactly the same as Alo's. Underscore what Alo said here. Discrimination of any sort is to be discouraged except when demonstrably necessary.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #161
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

A ban on any marriage other than 1 male-1 female discriminates against every other form of marriage, not sexual preference
You've been told how it discriminates against homosexual people. The law has wildly different effects on gay and straight people. Whether the law is phrased that way or not is irrelevant.

And it discriminates against every other form of marriage generally for reasons (harm, as cited above). In the cases in which there are no reasons to discriminate (as in the case of same-sex marriage), such discrimination is wrong.

[ Monday, December 10, 2007 16:33: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
For all you physics gurus in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #47
As I study for my E&M final, this bothers me yet more. Without the Lorentz force law, what the hell did anyone think these fields meant? I mean, I'm told that quantum and relativistic electrodynamics attribute a great deal of reality to the fields as entities unto themselves (they have energy, momentum, etc.), but lacking that, the fields exist only to create forces. But without the Lorentz force law, you don't know how the fields actually create forces.

They must've had a primitive version of the Lorentz force law before they had the real thing. That's the only plausible explanation I can manage. Otherwise, the fields they were working with were meaningless.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #152
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

Right or wrong, though, a ban on gay marriage is certainly an inequality. If it is to be defended, it needs to be defended as an inequality.
…along with polyamorous marriage which is also discriminated against, oh and incestuous marriage (where the couples/groups don’t reproduce of course). Right?

I'll interpret this as you granting that a ban on gay marriage is in fact discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. Especially in light of this:
quote:
So what? Everybody agrees the laws are discriminatory.
The next question to answer is whether this discrimination is warranted or not. Discrimination in general isn't warranted (and is unconstitutional) unless some significant harm can be shown to stem from not discriminating.

In the case of consenting adult incest (of which I've never heard, but let's imagine), the harm is to the children of such a union: children of incest are far more likely to have serious genetic defects than the general population. If someday we can screen for such defects very effectively, I see no reason not to allow a man to marry his sister if both are consenting adults, but until that day, it is better to prevent harm to the children.

As for polygamy, I have said that I'm not sure what harm comes from it in an ideal circumstance, but I suspect that the harm is in rivalry. Spouses are not treated equally, and that causes discord, which tears homes apart. In that case, the harm is to anyone whose well-being is dependent on the marriage(s) surviving, including the children.

No such harm is to be had in the case of gay marriage, so there is no reason to prevent it. In the same way, no harm could be shown to come from interracial marriage, so there is no reason to prevent it.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #137
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

quote:
It is similar enough to Jim Crow discrimination that making finer distinctions is truly splitting hairs.
No it’s not. Black children were not treated the same as white children. Homosexuals are treated just like heterosexuals.

Um, simply asserting that you're right without addressing anything that I said is both unconvincing and impolite. The law doesn't treat homosexuals as it does heterosexuals. Heterosexuals can marry whomever they want. Homosexuals cannot.

While we're at it, Stillness, you sound as though you don't know what bisexuality is. It doesn't have anything to do with polygamy, as Alo has pointed out.

[ Monday, December 10, 2007 09:42: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #106
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

You show me an existing homosexual society, or why a society would turn predominately homosexual and I'll believe you. But until then, I don't think so.
There's nothing to "believe." It's a hypothetical situation. If you lack the ability to imagine it, then that says something terrible about you.

I'm tempted to cite ancient Greece, but that would get us into arguments that we need not get into.

[ Sunday, December 09, 2007 17:23: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #94
quote:
Originally written by Mallorquin Slef:

I'm not truly convinced that seatbelt laws actually reduce the ambulance and hospital requirements to an extent that makes them meaningful forms of improving the health of others.
Then convince yourself. It's true. My brother's an EMT, and I know from his experiences. I know that anecdotal evidence isn't convincing in a scientific sense, but in this case, it's nevertheless true.
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I can’t imagine the bizarro world you describe. Sorry.
Weak.
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

If you feel that the government should allow same-sex marriage the same benefits as man-woman marriage that’s your right. But it’s NOT discrimination if they don’t, at least not in the same way as Jim Crow laws discriminate.
In the Jim Crow South, everyone had the right to go to school. It's just that some people had to go to worse schools. That discrimination was done entirely on the basis of race.

By current law, everyone has the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. But not everyone has the right to marry the person he or she wants. And the latter discrimination is exclusively based on sexual preference (or orientation, if you prefer the compass image).

The analogy is this: by one way of phrasing people's rights, everyone has the same rights. By another way, the law is obviously discriminatory. It is similar enough to Jim Crow discrimination that making finer distinctions is truly splitting hairs.

[ Sunday, December 09, 2007 11:54: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #83
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

Thuryl will have to take his equality arguments up with the angel Gabriel. Kelandon was just citing Muslim law, not making his own case.
While that first sentence is one of the best lines uttered on these forums in a while, I did say that I thought that this interpretation might be heading in the right direction. That's waffling with the best politicians: I'm not sure that I actually believe this argument, but let me present it anyway.

Like the old joke: Two politicians are debating. One says to the other: "You're lying!" The other replies, "Yes, I am. But hear me out!" (West Wing FTW.)
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

I'm not convinced that the fact that polygamists will not treat every spouse exactly equally is sufficient grounds to ban polygamy.
I'm not completely convinced, either. But then what is the problem? I feel reasonably certain that there is one.

[ Sunday, December 09, 2007 00:41: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #77
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

I do find it interesting that whenever anyone talks about polygamy, the implicit assumption is that it's normally going to be polygyny in particular.
The story goes that men died in wars a whole bunch in ancient Arabia, but women didn't, so to keep the population reasonably stable, it was necessary for the men to act as though they were each three or four men, reproductively speaking. I'm not sure that I actually believe it, but that's the story I've heard.

You'll note that the fundamental argument against it applies equally well to polyandry, even though it was designed for polygyny.

Excalibur: If all of your alternative solutions are even more unacceptable, what does that tell us?

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #73
I've never understood why anyone has a problem with unisex bathrooms, maybe because the bathrooms I've used have almost always had good stalls, dividers, etc.

And consent is the issue negating human/plant marriages, adult/child marriages, or what have you. But that doesn't answer the question of polygamy. I'm not immediately sure what the problem with polygamy is in an ideal world, but I think that the modern non-fundie Islamic take on it may be right: the Koran suggests that a man can marry up to four women, provided that he can treat them all equally. But no one can treat four different people (or even two different people) exactly equally, so there's no way for a man to marry more than one woman fairly.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #45
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

If the government enacts laws against discrimination, does that mean that our local casinos will no longer be able to refuse service to anybody. As of right now, a casino does not have to furnish any reason what so ever as to why they ban or suspend a customer from their casino.
In a word, no. There are laws against discriminating on the basis of race, and the company policies of which you speak are still legal.

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

So you mean to tell me that if I tell a homosexual I won’t rent to them or they can’t come into my store because they’re gay in those 30 states it’s legal?
I think that's exactly what that means. We're only a few decades removed from a racial caste system; I don't see why this is at all hard to believe.

quote:
What does marriage have to do with equality? Inequality is when someone is treated differently. A homosexual man or woman has the same legal rights, restrictions, and protections that heterosexual ones do
Equal treatment is not always equitable treatment. Take nine high-schoolers who speak only English and one who speaks only Spanish, put them in a math class together (conducted in English), and give them a test in English to determine whether they pass the class. Fail anyone who fails the test. You're treating them all the same, but are you being fair?

In general: I spend a fair bit of my time studying the ancient Greeks and Romans, so the notion that sentiment against homosexuality is universal among human cultures would be hilarious to me if it weren't so offensive.

[ Friday, December 07, 2007 17:22: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
For all you physics gurus in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #44
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

For instance I believe I can clearly explain so-called (and badly called) 'wave function renormalization', which is pretty much dealt with in all the texts I know by saying, 'Look, a monkey! And now we have a factor of Z!'
Ah, the monkey argument. I am well familiar with it. :P

Out of curiosity, how deep into a physics education does one normally encounter QFT? I get the feeling that it's not taught in any undergrad course here at Cal. Is it a first- or- second-year graduate sort of thing, or is it later than that?

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
For all you physics gurus in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #40
It's interesting, for sure, but since I've never seen real QFT and have only glimpsed real GR, it's a little hard to follow the issues in more than a purely conceptual way.

It was a revelation when my quantum professor pointed out one of the reasons why basic quantum mechanics is not compatible with special relativity (and thus we need QFT): If you localize a particle by measuring it and then wait an arbitrarily short amount of time, the Schrodinger Equation predicts a finite probability of it being arbitrarily far away. That probability is incredibly small, but it is non-zero, and that means that basic QM predicts that particles have some chance of traveling faster than light. This is no good.

Obviously, there are other, more fundamental problems, but the thing that made that one cool was that it was an equation that I knew and a result that I could actually calculate.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
For all you physics gurus in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #37
Heh.

Well, to be a little bit more plain: There is actually a fairly significant need for a good theory that combines QFT and GR (a quantum gravity theory). That need is in, for example, the field of astrophysics, in which we basically fail at describing the interior structure of a black hole (for instance) or what happened in the first few fractions of a second after the Big Bang.

But how on earth are you deep enough in this material to know that there are inconsistencies and yet not deep enough to know what I just said? :P

[ Tuesday, December 04, 2007 20:52: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Garbage in Avernum4 in Avernum 4
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #14
Um, you can't use BoA to create A4 stuff. Those are two separate programs. Really, really separate programs.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Mental training in General
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #47
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

The founder is a psychologist named Rob Williams, who lives in Colorado.
IMAGE(http://images.darkhorse.com/covers/14/14009.jpg)
Also, when I Google Psych-K, I find that Bruce Lipton was also a major contributor, and when I Wiki search Bruce Lipton, I am told that "Animal sexual behavior" has 92.7% relevance.

Then I recall the previous discussions we had about the man, and my curiosity is satisfied.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00

Pages