On Aug 30, 2008, at 12:30 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
The reason to give shots early is that's when the
immune system is
doing its major formational work, learning as
much as it can as fast
as it can. Vaccination is more likely to be effective for
different
diseases at different times.
Folks,
In reading about Vaccine Safety, I came across this article that
seemed pretty reasonable:
http://url.ie/nsv
But about half-way down, I came across a word I'd never seen before,
except on a recent thread right here on Brin-L: intussusception.
Coincidence, or what?
Dave
On Aug 30, 2008, at 5:23 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 30 Aug 2008, at 23:48, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Even if you don't give a fuck about people with Down Syndrome,
remember that, not long ago, someone else started doing the
same thing, and
On 2 Sep 2008, at 08:06, Dave Land wrote:
On Aug 30, 2008, at 5:23 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 30 Aug 2008, at 23:48, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Even if you don't give a fuck about people with Down Syndrome,
remember that, not long ago, someone else started doing the
On 2 Sep 2008, at 02:18, Dan M wrote:
Olin wrote at the end
These are all scientific questions though. If the answers don't
come form
there, where will they come from?
[snip]
So, there seems to be at least a few of us who agree that the
naturalistic
fallacy is just that, a
On 02/09/2008, at 2:41 PM, John Williams wrote:
My impression is that this list has an ongoing debate between
religous people,
with faith in their gods, and government people, with faith in their
politicians.
I'm neither of those. I'm not sure how long you've been lurking, but
this
On 2 Sep 2008, at 02:18, Dan M wrote:
So, there seems to be at least a few of us who agree that the
naturalistic
fallacy is just that, a fallacy. But, if we don't go that route,
then where
does one ground basic concepts of good and evil, right and wrong,
better and
worse?
Why do
On 2 Sep 2008, at 02:18, Dan M wrote:
My personal favorite version is love your neighbor as you love
yourself
because this balances the importance of neighbor and oneself. I
know people
who are so self-sacrificing that they neglect themselves. How best
to do
this can be the subject
On 02/09/2008, at 11:18 AM, Dan M wrote:
Now, IIRC, Charlie had some quibbles with do onto others as you
would have
them do unto you. He noted, correctly, that others may want and need
things differently from your own needs and wants. (Reminds me of
the old
story of the monkey who
On 02/09/2008, at 11:40 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
The only way to prove it is as a theorem from another axiom that's
not
provable: e.g. because we are all made in the image and likeness of
God we
must love one's neighbor as oneself.
Or it could be a social contract.
OK, jinxed.
Better to keep government as small as possible, not put our
politicians on a pedestal, and instead rely on ourselves and competition of
ideas
in a marketplace to determine solutions to problems. If the gene-pool of
ideas
is sufficiently diverse, then natural-selection in a free-market will
Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes - regulations should be about putting a brake on waste and
environmental damage, unethical practices and exploitation.
I don't understand the yes, since what follows the yes does not agree with
what
I wrote. Waste is not something that can be efficiently
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 10:48 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: Science and Ideals.
Dan M wrote:
The two clear views are these: morality,
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Ethics is a product of philosophy.
It's not a county in eastern England?
(Tom Holt reference, IIFC.)
Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
I accept a variant of the golden rule, I just don't accept that it's
anything other than a personal and social contract.
OK, so just to be clear, you think that no social or personal contract is
actually better than any other. (Clearly there have been a number of social
contracts on human
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It is clear that climate change is not something
the market can handle in any effective manner. Only government action has any
possibility of tackling this problem.
I do not have blind faith in government to solve difficult problems. The only
way
that
Honestly, what _short-term_ effect will drilling in Anwar and on our
coasts
have on prices?
The real question about drilling in areas that have been off limits until
now is when do we do it? The record of spills from oil well drilling has
been very good; the real damage has occurred in the
On 2 Sep 2008, at 15:53, Dan M wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
Of course if I was to ask the question it would probably be something
like;
do you think ethics are created by magic or do you believe
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Olin Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect that the same thing is true of a lot of our idealistic ethical
systems -- and the systems I hold most precious, democracy, the open
society, etc. almost certainly fall into this category -- they do not come
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Honestly, what _short-term_ effect will drilling in Anwar and on our
coasts
have on prices?
The real question about drilling in areas that have been off limits until
now is when do we do it? The record of spills from oil
If ethics is valid because it is 'grounded' in X, what makes X a valid
basis? Because it's grounded in Y? And Y in Z? And ...
Mathematics, as has been pointed out, is grounded on axioms that cannot
themselves be proven or reduced to anything else. Kurt Goedel showed that any
mathematical
On Sep 1, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Dan M wrote:
A number of atheists as well as theists have ideals they hold to be
true.
They believe in human rights. For example, most atheists that I
know accept
some form of the Golden Rule. I think its accurate to say that most
folks
on Brin-L believe
On Sep 2, 2008, at 9:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is clear that climate change is not something the market can
handle in any effective manner. Only government action has any
possibility of tackling this problem.
That's been well established. The government does best when it
On Sep 2, 2008, at 10:42 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
Honestly, what _short-term_ effect will drilling in Anwar and on
our
coasts
have on prices?
The real question about drilling in areas that have been off limits
until
now is when do we do it? The record of spills from oil well
On 1 Sep 2008, at 15:34, Olin Elliott wrote:
The question 'where do our ethical ideas come from' has the answer
'our nature as social mammals'.
The question 'how do we tell good from bad' does not have the answer
'our nature as social mammals'.
Category Mistake Maru
I'm not sure this is
...because something is cheap doesn't mean
we need to be
wasteful, but that's the mentality and
lifestyle of the US.
Until gas prices started going up, higher efficiency cars
were a fantasy for
the future.
In the 80's 90s, most people, myself
included, never considered or cared
that oil
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jon Louis Mann
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 3:13 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Gas prices alternative fuel
...because something is cheap doesn't mean
we need to
the market for higher mpg cars started to pick up
after the OPEC gas price
increases in the 70s. unfortunately, it didn't
last. while the price of
gas will continue to fluctuate, it will no longer dip
that much,
relatively, because demand will continue to outstrip
supply, despite
On 03/09/2008, at 12:50 AM, John Williams wrote:
Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes - regulations should be about putting a brake on waste and
environmental damage, unethical practices and exploitation.
I don't understand the yes, since what follows the yes does not
agree with what
I
On 03/09/2008, at 1:07 AM, Dan M wrote:
I accept a variant of the golden rule, I just don't accept that
it's
anything other than a personal and social contract.
OK, so just to be clear, you think that no social or personal
contract is
actually better than any other.
Oh for fuck's
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:41 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
My impression is that this list has an ongoing debate between religous
people,
with faith in their gods, and government people, with faith in their
politicians.
Eh? Is that sarcasm? I hope.
If not, then somebody has
On 03/09/2008, at 6:58 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:41 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My impression is that this list has an ongoing debate between
religous
people,
with faith in their gods, and government people, with faith in their
politicians.
Eh?
Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd say that the American free market is an illusion
anyway.
I'd agree that the United State's market is far from free. I did not
intend to compare countries. Indeed, the more global the market,
the better, as far as I am concerned.
So allowing a logging
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If not, then somebody has successfully re-framed our conversations in an
unfortunate way.
Sorry, I did not mean the groups to be mutually-exclusive or all-encompassing.
Some posts seem to fit into both, some neither. But is was interesting to
see how similar
From: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I was not referring to the framework for any specific
country. If your
country does not have basic laws protecting property and
individual
liberty, then I suggest worrying less about government
regulations to
reduce waste and more about basic legal
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
my priority is regulation of those who have way too much property.
The very fact that you are posting an email
here suggests that you have more property than millions, and probably
billions of people in the world.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Charlie Bell
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 3:53 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: Science and Ideals.
On 03/09/2008, at 1:07 AM, Dan M wrote:
I accept a
John Williams wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It is clear that climate change is not something
the market can handle in any effective manner. Only government action has
any
possibility of tackling this problem.
I do not have blind faith in government to solve
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Olin Elliott
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 11:11 AM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: Science and Ideals.
If ethics is valid because it is 'grounded' in X, what makes X a
Kevin B. O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the problem were not urgent, if we had the luxury of reducing CO2
emissions by 30% over the next hundred years, I would probably agree
with you. Tweaking market incentives would probably be a very good way
to address that sort of problem. But when
Bruce wrote:
A good indicator of how much environmental impact there would be is
the drilling currently taking place on the North Slope. Everything
needed to support the drilling crews and equipment -- and I mean
everything, food, living supplies, drilling mud, logging/analysis
equipment,
On 2 Sep 2008, at 23:47, Dan M wrote:
This is actually at the heart of my point. As you said, it has to
stop
someplace. Different people have different stopping places when they
develop ethical systems. Systems have been developed that I would
guess
most of us would find repugnant,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/02/tv.what.the.frak.ap/index.html?imw=Yiref=mpstoryemail
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The solution to Pearl Harbor was
straightforward. The solution to
the environment is not. I don't see how some
politicians, who have spent
precious little time studying either the environment or
economics, will be
capable of solving the problem. Simply deciding
to go to war on the
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:16 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Anyway, do you think that
a logging company that clear cuts its forests will be the most profitable,
in the long run, in a competitive market?
Well, I do... if by clear-cutting it drives the competition out of business.
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:25 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Sorry, I did not mean the groups to be mutually-exclusive or
all-encompassing.
Some posts seem to fit into both, some neither. But is was interesting to
see how similar some posts appeared as far as faith in a
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it will become much, much worse in this century. some
estimates are that we will reach critical mass in four more years, and then
the
problem will correct itself...
I think those estimates may be a bit off. My estimate is 5 years.
Oh, wait, I just
it will become much, much worse in this century. some
estimates are that we will reach critical mass in four
more years, and then the problem will correct itself...
I think those estimates may be a bit off. My estimate is 5
years.
Oh, wait, I just checked my work, and I seem to have
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For public companies, the long run is anything more than a year or two,
What is it for politicians?
Who cares if the company will run out of trees, as long as it isn't going to
happen until long after the current senior management and board are gone?
I'd peg
my priority is regulation of those who have way too much property.
The very fact that you are posting an email
here suggests that you have more property
than millions, and probably
billions of people in the world.
as a matter of fact, i own a home in eureka, california, and forty acres
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
my priority is regulation of those who have way too much property.
as a matter of fact, i own a home in eureka, california, and forty acres in
shasta county. which is certainly more than most people in the world, but far
less than the kind of corporate
my priority is regulation of those who have
way too much property. as a matter of fact, i own a home in eureka,
california, and forty acres in
shasta county. which is certainly more than most
people in the world, but far
less than the kind of corporate entities i am
referring to,
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
you know very well that is not what i mean.
Sorry for being dense, but I do not. You wrote about people who
have way too much property. How much is way too much?
___
53 matches
Mail list logo
