Politics and Beliefs

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

AuthorTopic: Politics and Beliefs
Warrior
Member # 6347
Profile #25
Fascinating...

So the only difference is names?

What's the big deal, then?

I don't get it... :eek:

--------------------
"Take time to listen to what is said without words, to obey the law too subtle to be written, to worship the unnameable and to embrace the unformed." -- Lao Tzu
Posts: 124 | Registered: Monday, September 26 2005 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #26
Names can be very important to some people.

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #27
quote:
Originally written by Muji:

By what stretch of the imagination can "Intelligent Design" not be considered religion? Even if you try to distance it from the Christian faith, the fact remains that its central paradigm is one of a sentient, willful, creating force. In other words, a god, if not the God.
I am so going to regret getting into this.

Intelligent Design is certainly not religion. It makes no claims about the supposed designer other than those that can be reasonably inferred from observing his/her/its/their creation - ID supports the idea that life was created by completely non-deistic aliens as well as it supports the idea that life was created by God.

ID is based on the idea that by observing something, we can reach conclusions about how it came to be. By observing materials of various colours spread across a piece of canvas, we are able to conclude that someone put them there. It's the same basic concept. A theory based on analysing data strikes me - a layman though I might be - as much more scientific than religious or philosophical.

[ Friday, October 07, 2005 19:23: Message edited by: Ash Lael ]

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #28
The problem is that it's short on both quantitative tests and useful predictions.

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #29
quote:
Originally written by Muji:

So if one state wants to be a bastion of purity and outlaw anything related to homosexuality, you'd support that?
No, I would oppose it. But the national government has never been in the business of regulating marriage; that's always been a state and local government thing. Read the legislature's powers enumerated in the Constitution — we'd need a constitutional amendment just to make it legal to pass a national law concerning gay marriage.

quote:
Originally written by Muji:

How would you help deal with poverty, though? Various subsidies? Wouldn't a tax cut for the poorest help out a lot?

And poor as they are, it's not like they'd make a big dent in the deficit anyways, would they?

Bush's tax cuts didn't much affect the poor anyway. They were mostly for the richest of the rich. I just want to roll back the tax cuts benefiting the people who have plenty of money already, because right now the government can't pay for all of its commitments (like, you know, roads and schools and stuff).

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.

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
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #30
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

The problem is that it's short on both quantitative tests and useful predictions.
Again, forgive me if I'm just displaying my ignorance about science, but...

Surely there are plenty of tests that could be done? Such as finding some sort of criteria that allows you to objectively determine between a painting and a random mash of colours, and then checking that against a whole lotta paintings and random mashes (forgive my tech-speak :P ). Or did I misunderstand what you meant?

And surely if can tell us something about the origin of life, than that's a useful prediction (attach misunderstanding clause, as per usual)?

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #31
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

The problem is that it's short on both quantitative tests and useful predictions.
Again, forgive me if I'm just displaying my ignorance about science, but...

Surely there are plenty of tests that could be done? Such as finding some sort of criteria that allows you to objectively determine between a painting and a random mash of colours, and then checking that against a whole lotta paintings and random mashes (forgive my tech-speak :P ).

That's not exactly the problem. Evolution creates order, too — evolution doesn't just say that we will find random mashes of genetics all over the place. Intelligent design is conveniently set up to create exactly the same order that evolution does, simply explaining the mechanism differently.

Evolution can predict certain things about what we will find in the fossil record. All intelligent design can predict is what we will not be able to find. That's why it's not a scientific theory.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.

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
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #32
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

Surely there are plenty of tests that could be done? Such as finding some sort of criteria that allows you to objectively determine between a painting and a random mash of colours, and then checking that against a whole lotta paintings and random mashes (forgive my tech-speak :P ).
We're not even very good at doing this with actual paintings, let alone living organisms. :P

But if you want me to make an assessment of whether the elements of an organism's genome seem designed or not, well, there are an awful lot of useless bits which are easily explicable as relics of evolution but don't make all that much sense if they were designed in. (At least, not by one person -- maybe if they were designed by several committees working at different points in time without full access to the details of each other's work... :P )

[ Friday, October 07, 2005 19:52: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #33
So test a ditch against a ravine or something else caused by natural processes...? :confused:

To Thuryl: Well, maybe that's why they're scientists and I'm not. :P

Also:
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

But if you want me to make an assessment of whether the elements of an organism's genome seem designed or not, well, there are an awful lot of useless bits which are easily explicable as relics of evolution but don't make all that much sense if they were designed in. (At least, not by one person -- maybe if they were designed by several committees working at different points in time without full access to the details of each other's work... :P )
See, now you're saying that it IS possible to scientifically determine whether or not something is designed, just disagreeing with the conclusions of the people promoting the idea - that seems to boil down to calling it a valid science practiced by bad scientists. :P

[ Friday, October 07, 2005 20:02: Message edited by: Ash Lael ]

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 5585
Profile #34
I do not normally participate in these topics, but seeing as it has yet to degenerate into a screaming argument, I will make an exception. Sorry if a lot of this is said already, but I'm going to take a while since I'm not used to putting my beliefs into words.

1. Liberal, mostly, although I do have a few beliefs that are more conservative.

2.Disagree. I won't elaborate, since my views match up with pretty much everyone else's here. If you want to know what I think about this, just read Muji's post.

3. I'm not going to say much on this, because I'm not too certain about it. Personally, I'd never support it, but I am currently uncertain about what role the government should take in it.

4. I think it should be allowed, as long as it's just government marriages and churches have the right to accept or deny it depending on what beliefs they support. Churches should not be saying that homosexuality is wrong, then conducting homosexual marriages, and they should not be changing thier views on homosexuality just because of popular opinion. If it's just legal marriage, I don't care, since the religious aspects are removed.
Outlawing homosexuallity is a bad idea, even from the religious point of view. If it is outlawed, there wouldn't be any more homosexual behavior (at least none legally), but dislike of Christianity would rise, since the dislike of homosexuallity is almost entirely Christian. I don't know about others, but in my religion following our beliefs means nothing if you're bieng forced to and hating it.

5. Scientifically, no. Overall, yes, but that's mostly because I'm Christian.

6. Perhaps not in as much detail, but yes, it should be mentioned.

7. Probably not. People would get paid more, but the prices of things would rise, so in the end it would be the same to people getting minimum wage, and worse for people getting paid more than the new minimum wage.

8. Lower 25%. Anything else doesn't really make much sense. Rich people have much more extra income, while poor people usually need a larger amount of thier income to support themselves.

9. I don't know much about this, so I won't say anything.

I don't have time to finish, it's 11:47 pm here and my parents just got home from a concert. In short, environment laws= good.

[ Friday, October 07, 2005 20:06: Message edited by: Error ]

--------------------
Important Information about Stuff
Posts: 258 | Registered: Wednesday, March 9 2005 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #35
I'm fairly far along on the left side of the political axis. Beyond that I see no reason to assign a label to myself. I agree with a number of Socialist goals and beliefs.

I never believed that the war in Iraq was right, and I don't think it's being handled right now. On the other hand, leaving would only dump the mess on a state unprepared to deal with it. We need to come up with a better plan and one that does give us a chance to leave sometime within our lifetimes.

I see no reason to make abortion illegal. Once you discard the religion card, the decision is obvious until later in pregnancy, and even then I find the value of a single human pre-life to be small.

As Thuryl pointed out, "marriage" is a religious concept that has become mixed into secular legal processes. "Civil union" should be the only form of partnership of the kind recognized by the state. If churches want to allow marriages or don't, that's their business. The legal benefits, rights, and responsibilities should have nothing to do with it.

We don't teach religion in classes. We don't fund religious research with public money. The "theory" of evolution is a theory in the scientific sense of the word. It is testable, it describes reality as far as we can determine, and it makes predictions. Intelligent design is a theory in the common use of the word. It is, basically, a guess. It is not equal in scientific merit, and science, unlike religion, provides practical benefit in understanding the way the world works. (Sorry, Kel, but I have to disagree. There are fundamental differences between science and religions. Religion, including creationism and ID, should not be taught in schools as science. In a religion or philosophy class perhaps, but not in biology.

I don't know enough about economics to discuss the pros and cons of changing minimum wage. All I'll say is that everyone should be able to earn a living wage that supports decent life, not intolerable life.

Tax cuts should not go to those who need them least. They should go to those who ened them most: the poor. I would prefer a graduated income with the wealthier paying a higher percentage, not a lower percentage.

Companies clearly need more control and oversight after the obvious failures of Enron, WorldCom, and so on. In general, a company will not look out for the best interests of everybody, so it is up to everybody, via the government, to control them.

The environment needs to be cared for. We're failling at that right now. We need to do better.

—Alorael, who believes in peace, brotherhood, and the right to have a chicken in every backyard.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #36
quote:
Originally written by Rain Delay:

As Thuryl pointed out, "marriage" is a religious concept that has become mixed into secular legal processes. "Civil union" should be the only form of partnership of the kind recognized by the state. If churches want to allow marriages or don't, that's their business.
I agree with this.

quote:
Originally written by Rain Delay:

I see no reason to make abortion illegal. Once you discard the religion card, the decision is obvious until later in pregnancy, and even then I find the value of a single human pre-life to be small.
I strongly disagree with this.

Someone shout at me to stop posting, there are things I should be doing. :(

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 3368
Profile #37
I agree with Muji and Kel in that Intelligent design isn't a scientific theory, therefore it shouldn't be taught in a science class. Also, making abortion illegal will in no way stop abortion, it will simply stop safe abortion. And I think the gay marriage thing is more about separation of church and state than anything else. Seeing homosexuality as a sin is a purely religious (I won't say Christian because other religions condemn it too) idea and I think it is an outrage that it is illegal.

--------------------
"Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending"
Posts: 287 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00
Warrior
Member # 6347
Profile #38
Dammit, every time I'm about to post a reply, I see someone else has replied, so I have to edit my post. :P

So it keep growing and growing... all that just so I don't double post! So don't complain it's too long. ;)

...

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

Names can be very important to some people.
Good point.

Still, such a fuss over semantics... :(

quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

quote:
Originally written by Muji:

By what stretch of the imagination can "Intelligent Design" not be considered religion? Even if you try to distance it from the Christian faith, the fact remains that its central paradigm is one of a sentient, willful, creating force. In other words, a god, if not the God.
I am so going to regret getting into this.

Intelligent Design is certainly not religion. It makes no claims about the supposed designer other than those that can be reasonably inferred from observing his/her/its/their creation - ID supports the idea that life was created by completely non-deistic aliens as well as it supports the idea that life was created by God.

ID is based on the idea that by observing something, we can reach conclusions about how it came to be. By observing materials of various colours spread across a piece of canvas, we are able to conclude that someone put them there. It's the same basic concept. A theory based on analysing data strikes me - a layman though I might be - as much more scientific than religious or philosophical.

That makes sense. I must admit, I hadn't considered the alien perspective.

Of course, that not how most people are looking at ID, but, well, I guess that's another story.

The main concern people have with ID is that it's the Religious Right's attempt at "sneaking" religion into schools. That ID is, despite its claims to vagueness, specifically about Christian Genesis. A concern I can understand, and share.

I'm all for theorizing about aliens, though.

But looking at it like that, ID and Evolution aren't mutually exclusive...

Consider this outlandish and exaggerated scenario, if you will:

Some alien race, for some reason unknown to us, decided to create us.

And so they planted the "seeds of life" on Earth. Using their highly advanced knowledge of evolutionary biology (among many other great skills), however they set things up, they made it so that life would grow and evolve on Earth.

So you get ID (the aliens "creating" us, jump-starting life on this planet) and Evolution (the subsequent growth of said life).

What's wrong with that? I personally quite like the idea.

I don't believe it, but I like it. It's a nice story.

Point is, we don't have the slightest clue of where (or why) we come from.

I'm not an atheist. I very very strong beliefs about the physical and spiritual nature of our universe. But I believe in evolution. It makes sense.

I'm all for a scientific inquiry into the theory of ID, but it doesn't seem to me that it's gone through enough scientific "tests" and research to be taught in schools as a direct competitor to evolution. I'm not saying it never will. I'll be glad to see the day where, in our schools, scientists and teachers are honest enough to say "Hey, you know what? We don't know. But we have a couple of theories, and here they are...".

As I mentioned before, I'm not a huge fan of science. Not that I don't believe in it, but I strongly dislike the cold and impersonal approach it leads to. As much as I wouldn't say science, by itself, fosters atheism, I do believe that our approach to science tends to lead many in that direction. Which I find sad (but hey, that's just me).

As I've mentioned before, Science, to me, is nothing more than the new world religion. It's a personal paradigm that's easy to succumb to. It's a world view. It's a Faith. My biggest beef with it, though, is that since it only deals with what it can touch or see, it completely ignores the spiritual world. I can't wait for the day that science reaches a level where it can go further than skin-deep.

But back to ID; as I said I've been telling myself to do for a while, I started doing a bit of research. I do emphasize a bit... I haven't gotten very far. But I did find a few things.

Here's something about the whole science vs. religion bit, and why a religiously-fuelled ID theory doesn't belong in science class:

quote:
From this page:
"Science is limited by its tools -- observable facts and testable hypothesis. Because religious beliefs are based on faith, and are not subject to scientific test and refutation, these beliefs should not be taught in the realm of natural sciences."
But when you say this: "ID supports the idea that life was created by completely non-deistic aliens as well as it supports the idea that life was created by God", well, Evolution doesn't necessarily preclude ID. Here's something else I found, this written in 2001.

quote:
From this page:
"This is where it gets hard. And I want to be as fair as I can to those who believe in intelligent design. I have friends who believe in intelligent design. Our next-door neighbors—very nice people—believe in intelligent design. If by “intelligent design,” its proponents only meant that some intelligent designer (whether it be God, space aliens, or a giant slug) is using evolution to accomplish some intelligent purpose (one in which we humans might be major players), we wouldn’t be here. This evolution-is-part-of-God’s-plan view is, essentially, the view of the Catholic Church, most Jews, and most mainline Protestant denominations. There is no necessary conflict between a belief in evolution and a belief that God is real and working in the world. The theory of evolution says nothing at all about the existence or non-existence of a benevolent, intelligent designer. Evolution doesn’t require an intelligent creator, but it doesn’t exclude the possibility either. The theory of evolution simply provides a powerful scientific explanation for the variety of life on earth. It is the core concept of biology. It is not a disproof of religion."
Within this context, ID doesn't need to be against Evolution.

The only time where Evolution and ID come to clash is when you take ID from a decidedly Christian perspective and take the Bible as empirical truth, as opposed to metaphor.

Again, a quote from that last page:

quote:
From this page:
"The problem today arises because the proponents of Intelligent Design are not content with the weak view that accepts evolution. Instead, they argue that the evidence suggests individual species were individually and intelligently designed. Humans and the great apes, for example, did not have a common ancestor some 6 million years ago. The fact that humans and chimps share over 98% of the same genetic material proves little. The “missing links”—the early hominids that keep inconveniently popping up in Africa—all must be new and separate species. It’s just a coincidence that the most mammal-like of all reptile fossils appear just before the most reptile-like of all mammal fossils. The fact that no tenured biology professor (as opposed to law professors, hydrologists, or even a handful of biochemists) at any of the top-ranked universities shares their conviction in the folly of evolution shows only how widespread the Darwinian conspiracy is."
This becomes Christian because that's what the Bible says, doesn't it? That God created man and all living creatures. Each one individually. Independently. Without this core Christian belief, why would anyone have a problem with Evolution? Even if they believed in Intelligent Design?

I read something else about all this, but I unfortunately can't find it to quote it right now. But to paraphrase, it basically said that the theory of evolution is one of the strongest scientific theories we have right now. That it's constantly being put to the test and proven right.

I'm all for ID, if it can reach that level of scientific solidity. In the end, it's the Christian bias of ID that's problematic.

I'll leave you with one word against ID: mosquitos!!

Unless our intelligent designers have a cruel sense of humor. ;)

And why would you regret getting into this? This is what this thread is for! This is fun! :D

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by Muji:

So if one state wants to be a bastion of purity and outlaw anything related to homosexuality, you'd support that?
No, I would oppose it. But the national government has never been in the business of regulating marriage; that's always been a state and local government thing. Read the legislature's powers enumerated in the Constitution — we'd need a constitutional amendment just to make it legal to pass a national law concerning gay marriage.

I didn't know that! About needing a constitutional amendment. Interesting.

Forgive me, I'm Canadian. ;)

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by Muji:

How would you help deal with poverty, though? Various subsidies? Wouldn't a tax cut for the poorest help out a lot?

And poor as they are, it's not like they'd make a big dent in the deficit anyways, would they?

Bush's tax cuts didn't much affect the poor anyway. They were mostly for the richest of the rich. I just want to roll back the tax cuts benefiting the people who have plenty of money already, because right now the government can't pay for all of its commitments (like, you know, roads and schools and stuff).

I'm well aware Bush's tax cuts were mostly for the rich. And I'm fully in favor of doing something to change that. But I'm just saying, the poor could actually use those tax cuts. Why not give it to them? If you removed them from the rich, you could give some to the poor and still have plenty of money left to help with the deficit. And you'd be raising the lower classes from the much while you're at it.

quote:
Originally written by Rain Delay:

...stuff...
I'm not sure what I should be saying here, but I feel I should say something; I agree fully.

There. I said something.

Those words could have been my own. Or close enough.

quote:
Originally written by Bender Bending Rodriguez:

Also, making abortion illegal will in no way stop abortion, it will simply stop safe abortion..
That's an excellent point! I had never thought of that!

~puts on his pro-choice marching costume~

It's too late to stop it. Banning it would just make things worse. :(

quote:
Originally written by Bender Bending Rodriguez:

(I won't say Christian because other religions condemn it too)
Yup. In some countries, you can get stoned to death for being gay.

And here we are, arguing about semantics! ~LoL~

--------------------
"Take time to listen to what is said without words, to obey the law too subtle to be written, to worship the unnameable and to embrace the unformed." -- Lao Tzu
Posts: 124 | Registered: Monday, September 26 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #39
Congrats on 1k posts, Ash Lael! Should we look for a celebration thread? (EDIT: Okay, saw the thread, never mind)

Wow, so much to respond to. This could have been in 10 different threads, honestly. (I just wish the debate section of Polaris was this active)

quote:
Originally written by chicho:

wow there is some complicated questions in there!
someone maybe should do a poll about religion or something

This has been done before in various forms: HERE and HERE and HERE. The second and third ones might be interesting to resurrect. Particularly the informal poll in the second one.

quote:
Originally written by Muji:

All this energy we spend on abortions vs. no abortions could much better be spent trying to make sure people don't end up in a situation where they'd want to get an abortion. No?

Agreed. But for those who do end up in that situation, abortions should be easily accessible, both geographically and economically. The idea of raising prices to restrict abortions would cause more harm than good: then you end up with more unwanted children being born into already-poor families. In fact, that's one of the reasons why I consider myself pro-choice: it's better for everyone (the mother, family, would-be-child, and society at large) if children are actually wanted by their parents.

quote:
Originally written by Ischii:

By and large I hate all politics, since it's all villains wearing different masks trying to bamboozle people into giving them more power. Different powermongers like to push conservative buttons, others liberal buttons. But their aims and desires are the same — black hearts through and through.
Partial agreement there. Far too much of politics is devoted to winning the next election, instead of improving the way things work while people are in office. However, I don't think they're necessarily that evil. It's just that the ones we could call positive forces usually get run out of office because their ads weren't vicious enough.

And now that I've responded to a few major ideas, I'll present my answers to the poll:

1. [b]Answer: Liberal.[/b] However, I identify myself as Independent. I think it's best to keep an open mind about political (and really, any) issues, so choosing an ideological side is too restricting for my tastes. That said, many of my beliefs do end up on the liberal end of the spectrum.

2. [b]Answer: I disagree, but we should stick it out.[/b] We've done enough damage that we really ought to try and fix it before we leave. I don't advocate hunting down every single terrorist in the Middle East, as the Bush administration seems to think it can do, but I do support helping Iraq recover from the damage we inflicted.

3. [b]Answer: Yes, in all cases.[/b] I'm pro-choice because I honestly think it's the woman's choice. Also, (see above) criminalizing abortions hurts society in general, particularly those who are already in economic trouble. However, I do agree with the "prevention before abortion" idea put forth by Eldibis and Muji. It's just that when prevention fails, there needs to be a safe and accessible alternative.

4. Answer: It should be allowed. Again, it's a matter of choice. The Catholic church can prevent gay wedding ceremonies all it wants, but the government (and the church) shouldn't try to deny homosexuals the right to marry in a legally-binding sense. Any who disagree should lay aside their pre-existing notions and try to empathize for half a second... imagine what that'd be like, to be denied the right to marry just because you chose another lifestyle?

5 & 6. Answers: Neither Creationism nor Intelligent Design are equal to evolution, and It has no place in schools. Science and religion will remain separate until further notice. Creationism and Intelligent Design seem to have been created just to twist existing evolutionary evidence around to support religious positions. And to be perfectly honest, public schools are run by the state. Church & state will also remain separate until further notice. (Thus, I guess it'd be okay in private schools)

7. [b]Answer: It should be raised to between $5 to $10 an hour.[/b] Honestly, I don't know enough about this to have a very informed opinion. It just seemed better than leaving it blank.

8. [b]Answer: The lowest 25%.[/b] I agree with Kel that undoing the tax cuts would be best, and it might level the playing field a bit. But until the U.S. gets a liberal majority (read: when the Inferno freezes over) in the government, I suppose it'd be best to give the tax cuts to the people who need them (what a novel idea).

9. [b]Answer: There should be a few more limitations.[/b] Again, I don't know enough about the issue to justify a full "Yes, many more limitations," but what companies like Enron et. al have done to their employees is unacceptable. Somebody should be watching that kind of stuff closer.

10. [b]Answer: Yes, there should be more regulations on emmissions and development.[/b] I'm a hippie and proud of it. The main problem with the whole idea, however, is that the environmental movement has been turned into a special interest group, and has thereby lost a lot of power. A bit of reorganization before the political ambition would help. Environmental scare-tactics don't work, but gradually changing people's opinions will (i.e.: people are slowly realizing that SUVs are a bad idea). That said, some new regulations might help speed things up a bit, and maybe we could go back and get in on some of the anti-pollution agreements we've rejected repeatedly.

Whew... that was longer than usual. Anyway, my compliments on the design of the poll. Very well done, except for the omission of "Independent" and "no more tax cuts for the love of god."

I'll be happy to argue more if/when people respond.

EDIT: Wow, this is moving quickly.

[ Friday, October 07, 2005 20:48: Message edited by: Ephesos ]

--------------------
Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.

I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #40
I agree with Alorael's statement about gay marriage, but I think that "domestic partnership" makes a heck of a lot more sense than "civil union." As long as we're working over semantics — because the difference between the government granting marriage licenses for a civil marriage and the government granting marriage licenses for a civil union is pretty miniscule on anything except a semantic level — we may as well go for the proper term. :P

Ash: It's pretty hard to come up with a test that differentiates between a ditch that someone dug and a physically identical ravine dug out by a river. :P

As you've observed, certain intelligent design theories are scientific and have been discredited — these are old creationist theories from the times before a lot of evidence was known. Others are not scientific in nature at all, but religious or philosophical — these are the new theories, the ones that people are trying to get put in curriculum today. None of these are of interest in a high school science course. Maybe a "History of Science" or "Philosophy of Science" or a unit on scientific literacy, but not a normal bio course.

That's not to say that the new ideas are factually wrong — an intelligence may have created life. It's just not useful (or scientific) to assume so in the context of a scientific theory.

Muji: I was trying to say that I don't care if the tax cuts for the lower-income earners stay. You're probably right; it's just not what I was talking about.

[ Friday, October 07, 2005 20:48: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.

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
Warrior
Member # 6347
Profile #41
I knew I had forgotten something...

quote:
Originally written by Rain Delay:

I don't know enough about economics to discuss the pros and cons of changing minimum wage. All I'll say is that everyone should be able to earn a living wage that supports decent life, not intolerable life.
Good point, and I think that's the key issue. It's not about how much minimum wage is, it's about what it'll get you.

I've stated how much I think it should be, but I forgot to mention why.

Canada's minimum wage supports... life. But I wouldn't exactly call it decent. If you work 40 hours/week at a minimum wage job, you can get by, but barely, and Montréal (from what I've heard, not sure how true it is) has one of the lowest costs of living in North America. So I can imagine that in all the other places, people are having that much more of a hard time if they're only making minimum wage.

Cost of living goes up all the time. But I can't even remember when the minimum wage went up. That doesn't work out too well.

quote:
Originally written by Ephesos:

quote:
Originally written by Muji:

All this energy we spend on abortions vs. no abortions could much better be spent trying to make sure people don't end up in a situation where they'd want to get an abortion. No?

Agreed. But for those who do end up in that situation, abortions should be easily accessible, both geographically and economically. The idea of raising prices to restrict abortions would cause more harm than good: then you end up with more unwanted children being born into already-poor families. In fact, that's one of the reasons why I consider myself pro-choice: it's better for everyone (the mother, family, would-be-child, and society at large) if children are actually wanted by their parents.

Well, yes... I wasn't quite serious about raising the price. The rich wouldn't care and, arguably, it's the poor that need easy, safe access to it the most anyways.

I just meant that it's something that should be used as a last resort, and that our society—despite fully supporting it, and making it as available as possible—should foster a frame of mind where it wouldn't have to come to that too often.

quote:
Originally written by Ephesos:

EDIT: Wow, this is moving quickly.
Isn't it, though? ;)

I should go to bed. But I don't want to miss anything. :(

I'm scared of what there'll be to read/reply to tomorrow! :eek:

Glad I'm not working until Sunday. ;)

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Muji: I was trying to say that I don't care if the tax cuts for the lower-income earners stay. You're probably right; it's just not what I was talking about.
Oh! My bad. I had understood that you didn't want to give any to anyone.

--------------------
"Take time to listen to what is said without words, to obey the law too subtle to be written, to worship the unnameable and to embrace the unformed." -- Lao Tzu
Posts: 124 | Registered: Monday, September 26 2005 07:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #42
quote:
Originally written by Muji:

(boiled down)But doesn't that mean that ID and Evolution are not incompatible?
Yep. If I recall correctly, Michael Behe, one of the main proponents of ID, believes in Evolution-by-design.

EDIT: And now I am officially shutting up on this topic. Even if I do end up saying anything more in this thread, it'll probably be on the subject of abortion, which I consider a much more important issue.

[ Friday, October 07, 2005 21:14: Message edited by: Ash Lael ]

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Warrior
Member # 6347
Profile #43
~nods~

So there's really no point in teaching it as something separate. :P

Unless the purpose is to sneak Christian Creationism into the mix. ~shakes his head~

I'd love to go to school and hear about Evolution-by-Design, though. That would actually be worth taking a biology class for!

--------------------
"Take time to listen to what is said without words, to obey the law too subtle to be written, to worship the unnameable and to embrace the unformed." -- Lao Tzu
Posts: 124 | Registered: Monday, September 26 2005 07:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #44
I make a promise, only to break it five minutes later...

If the law of gravity and the theory of evolution are not incompatible, is there any reason to teach them seperately?

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #45
Yeah, I've got to agree with Muji there. Creationism is bogus, but Evolution by Design could be interesting... as a theory. In practical terms, it sounds fairly ridiculous and impossible to prove.

EDIT: Stop yourself before it's too late, Ash!

[ Friday, October 07, 2005 21:27: Message edited by: Ephesos ]

--------------------
Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.

I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #46
Who are you agreeing with, Ephesos? 'Cause I'm a Creationist. :P EDIT: Bleh, clarify your post before I'm done, why don't you?

I think it may already be too late for me... I've only gotten through a handful of songs so far and I have to be somewhere tonight... :(

[ Friday, October 07, 2005 21:31: Message edited by: Ash Lael ]

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Warrior
Member # 6347
Profile #47
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

I make a promise, only to break it five minutes later...

If the law of gravity and the theory of evolution are not incompatible, is there any reason to teach them seperately?

But Gravity and Evolution don't deal with the same topic...

Evolution and Intelligent Design, on the other hand, go hand in hand. They both have to do with our origins, albeit at different stages. Gravity is just a physical law.

quote:
Originally written by Ephesos:

Yeah, I've got to agree with Muji there. Creationism is bogus, but Evolution by Design could be interesting... as a theory. In practical terms, it sounds fairly ridiculous and impossible to prove.
Impossible to prove, for now.

But that's what I'm saying.

ID, as a science, is still too young.

But approached from a properly scientific angle... who knows what we'll discover in a year? A decade? A century?

And if/when that happens (if/when ID becomes a valid scientific theory), I think that could be extremely interesting.

"Evolutionary Design 101"... :D

...

I'll leave you all tonight with a lil' ranting tangent.

One theory I've heard (I don't think it's particularly widespread) is that life started on Earth from bacteria that landed here on a meteor. Which, in a way, would make us all aliens. :P

I like that.

Another theory I've heard (even more obscure) is that the meteor came from Mars.

It's immensely unlikely, but I like it anyways. I'm a huge fan of conspiracy theories, and utterly obsessed with Mars.

Some (very few) argue that, at one time, in the extremely distant past, Mars had been like Earth. A living world with an atmosphere.

Maybe we're Martians?

But going on a slight tangent from this, and continuing with the idea of ID/Evo, perhaps that meteor didn't land on Earth by accident.

...

Imagine: (crazy theory time)

Some alien civilization (our ancestors), somewhere far away (or perhaps not so far), a very long time ago... realized that something was gonna happen (cataclysm or somesuch... perhaps a large asteroid was going to hit their planet soon and vaporize them).

So they coded their knowledge into DNA... programmed themselves into bacteria, and shipped it off-world towards a planet they knew would—by the time it would be reached—be a prime spot to support life, thereby insuring the survival and continuation of their species in the long run.

It could be that their technology was not advanced enough to make the trip themselves, but that in bacterial form, on a cellular level, they knew it could reach.

Perhaps their technology was advanced enough that they could send something else...

Perhaps they calculated how long it might take us to evolve to a certain level of civilization and technology, and so they sent a slow-flying probe or something... on a billion year journey.

Maybe in a few years, we'll intercept it, and we'll find... a message from our great-great-great-(add a few zillion more greats)-grandfathers and grandmothers.

Or something like that.

~blinks~

I think I'm tired... ;) ~coughs~

I'm going to bed.

Otherwise I'm probably gonna start rambling about the Anunnaki... :rolleyes:

--------------------
"Take time to listen to what is said without words, to obey the law too subtle to be written, to worship the unnameable and to embrace the unformed." -- Lao Tzu
Posts: 124 | Registered: Monday, September 26 2005 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #48
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

But if you want me to make an assessment of whether the elements of an organism's genome seem designed or not, well, there are an awful lot of useless bits which are easily explicable as relics of evolution but don't make all that much sense if they were designed in. (At least, not by one person -- maybe if they were designed by several committees working at different points in time without full access to the details of each other's work... :P )
See, now you're saying that it IS possible to scientifically determine whether or not something is designed, just disagreeing with the conclusions of the people promoting the idea - that seems to boil down to calling it a valid science practiced by bad scientists. :P

I'm not saying that at all, because I wouldn't claim that the determination I made was "scientific" in any sense of the word. I'm making a subjective assessment -- "what makes sense to Thuryl" is hardly an objective standard, especially when ID advocates usually argue that their designer is of a nature fundamentally incomprehensible to humans. :P

[ Friday, October 07, 2005 21:48: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #49
Muji... your theory definitely suggests that you need sleep.

And yes, the future is uncertain. Who knows, we could end up proving that we all evolved from a highly-intelligent form of tapioca pudding, and that the process was begun by the godly equivalent of a game of checkers.

(Upon reflection, it appears that I need sleep too.)

--------------------
Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.

I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00

Pages