Re: HuffPo: Sarah Palin may be a better debater than (most) think
At 05:07 PM Friday 10/3/2008, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Missed _Doonesbury_ all last week, did you? http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/09/23/?campid=0ssns=9; (the thread runs from Monday the 22nd (the day before the one in the link) through Saturday the 27th) I assume you've seen http://ginina007.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/sarah-palin-looks-like-peggy-hill/ or http://tinyurl.com/5bszez Hard to top this one, though: http://thedailywhat.tumblr.com/post/52780926/le-soleil-a-french-language-newspaper-serving . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: HuffPo: Sarah Palin may be a better debater than (most) think
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Missed _Doonesbury_ all last week, did you? http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/09/23/?campid=0ssns=9; (the thread runs from Monday the 22nd (the day before the one in the link) through Saturday the 27th) I assume you've seen http://ginina007.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/sarah-palin-looks-like-peggy-hill/ or http://tinyurl.com/5bszez -- Mauro Diotallevi The number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
HuffPo: Sarah Palin may be a better debater than (most) think
Folks, An insightful article (http://url.ie/qxw) in the Huffington Post suggests that despite Sarah Palin's sketchy performance in situations where knowledge and understanding of issues are required, she proves to be a much more skilled debater because, as Andrew Halcro, 2006 Alaska gubernatorial candidate, writes: I've debated Governor Palin more than two dozen times. And she's a master, not of facts, figures, or insightful policy recommendations, but at the fine art of the nonanswer, the glittering generality. Against such charms there is little Senator Biden, or anyone, can do. Perhaps Palin, like Bush before her, knows (instinctively or intentionally) that you don't win elections by being smarter or more prepared than the other guy, you win by being more appealing, by seeming more _like_ the audience and wanting to be _liked by_ them. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: HuffPo: Sarah Palin may be a better debater than (most) think
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:35, Dave Land wrote: Folks, An insightful article (http://url.ie/qxw) in the Huffington Post suggests that despite Sarah Palin's sketchy performance in situations where knowledge and understanding of issues are required, she proves to be a much more skilled debater because, as Andrew Halcro, 2006 Alaska gubernatorial candidate, writes: I've debated Governor Palin more than two dozen times. And she's a master, not of facts, figures, or insightful policy recommendations, but at the fine art of the nonanswer, the glittering generality. Against such charms there is little Senator Biden, or anyone, can do. Perhaps Palin, like Bush before her, knows (instinctively or intentionally) that you don't win elections by being smarter or more prepared than the other guy, you win by being more appealing, by seeming more _like_ the audience and wanting to be _liked by_ them. People who know stuff are boring. Like school Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Debunking bullshit is a thankless task. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: HuffPo: Sarah Palin may be a better debater than (most) think
On Oct 1, 2008, at 8:28 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:35, Dave Land wrote: Folks, An insightful article (http://url.ie/qxw) in the Huffington Post suggests that despite Sarah Palin's sketchy performance in situations where knowledge and understanding of issues are required, she proves to be a much more skilled debater because, as Andrew Halcro, 2006 Alaska gubernatorial candidate, writes: I've debated Governor Palin more than two dozen times. And she's a master, not of facts, figures, or insightful policy recommendations, but at the fine art of the nonanswer, the glittering generality. Against such charms there is little Senator Biden, or anyone, can do. Perhaps Palin, like Bush before her, knows (instinctively or intentionally) that you don't win elections by being smarter or more prepared than the other guy, you win by being more appealing, by seeming more _like_ the audience and wanting to be _liked by_ them. People who know stuff are boring. Like school Maru I can't help but picture a talking Sarah Palin doll, in the same vein as the Barbie Math is hard!! doll, with the same quote but in that nasal Alaska twang of hers .. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: HuffPo: Sarah Palin may be a better debater than (most) think
At 08:33 PM Wednesday 10/1/2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote: On Oct 1, 2008, at 8:28 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:35, Dave Land wrote: Folks, An insightful article (http://url.ie/qxw) in the Huffington Post suggests that despite Sarah Palin's sketchy performance in situations where knowledge and understanding of issues are required, she proves to be a much more skilled debater because, as Andrew Halcro, 2006 Alaska gubernatorial candidate, writes: I've debated Governor Palin more than two dozen times. And she's a master, not of facts, figures, or insightful policy recommendations, but at the fine art of the nonanswer, the glittering generality. Against such charms there is little Senator Biden, or anyone, can do. Perhaps Palin, like Bush before her, knows (instinctively or intentionally) that you don't win elections by being smarter or more prepared than the other guy, you win by being more appealing, by seeming more _like_ the audience and wanting to be _liked by_ them. People who know stuff are boring. Like school Maru I can't help but picture a talking Sarah Palin doll, in the same vein as the Barbie Math is hard!! doll, with the same quote but in that nasal Alaska twang of hers .. Missed _Doonesbury_ all last week, did you? http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/09/23/?campid=0ssns=9; (the thread runs from Monday the 22nd (the day before the one in the link) through Saturday the 27th) Great Minds Think Alike Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
- Original Message - From: Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 4:26 PM Subject: RE: Sarah Palin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Olin Elliott Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 3:12 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Sarah Palin The environmental groups are going to go after Palin hard. She has supported drilling in sensitive wildlife areas and she allowed (even sanctioned) the use of airplanes to slaughter wolves in Alaska last year. See this, which came out yesterday from Defenders of Wildlife: http://www.defendersactionfund.org/http://www.defendersactionfund.org/ With all due respect, so what? Most people prefer drilling everywhere over $4.00 gasoline. And, the Republicans are winning that argument...the polls show a massive preference now to drill to bring down the prices. Her main risk for McCain is that she's very inexperienced on the national stage. She may say something that makes her look like one of the not ready for prime time players. No matter what one thinks about Obama, he's been around the rough and tumble of Chicago for years and has won against the Clinton machine. His speech last Thursday got plaudits from Romney's former advisor and he looks like the most ready Democrat to fight since Bill. He will make more mistakes, as will McCainbut Palin may make a laughingstock of herself. I am very interested in talking with my mother-in-law about this. She was one of the older women who thought there was sexist coverage favoring Obama. My guess is she'll laugh off Palin's pick as weak. Palin is a Hail Mary pass for the Republicans. Most don't work. But, every once in a while, to use another analogy, one wins the big pot by drawing to an inside straight. So, we'll have to stay tuned. This is making the rounds on the net ATM, and addresses pretty much what Dan is talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg Some conservatives forget the mike is still on and say what they really think about Palin. xponent Newsworthy Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
Alberto Monteiro wrote So, you think that someone does the _right_ thing, it's only because it benefits the political career? In other words, if I am in a position, say, to accept a bribe, and I don't accept, I only do it because it will benefit me? Often that is the case however, the presidents have background and history. Note that one of America’s greatest presidents had infantile paralysis The issue of determining the pedigree of those who served as president and the process of vetting them are cruel politics. Let it go don’t be so serious about the American process of becoming president. Many dare propose that Palin have more presidential pedigree than Senator Obama since she is Governor of Alaska and stretch the argument to include her position as commander in chief of the Alaska’s national guard serving in Iraq. We American’s deserve George Bush and we deserve what we get---not that the elections are conducted fairly or all the votes represent the true choice of Americans. Have you ever heard “a mind of your own”? Where did it come from? Was it hard wired in your brain when born? Come on with your cuneiform Let the lady and her kid alone So you say a John Mack clone You get what you deserve Limited from your very birth Harvard graduates infuriate you Constitutional scholars becoming president Can’t evaluate constitutional laws but comment On the likes of men with law degrees and US senators Becoming US presidents All of 25 of the 42 were lawyers Only 8 of those 25 were US Senators With to professors or deans of colleges Wilson and Taft were thinkers and elites Who did much for the so-called common man? Taft-Hartley and the laws that followed Now which was a president from journalist Up to the US Congress and then the US senate? Sure you need to vet those who will lead You need to check hopeless rhetoric indeed. This isn’t about doing the right thing Its about striking down the right to reason -- Original message from Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -- 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 he-who-should-not-be-mentioned-in-mailing-lists began the pogrom by mass-murdering those with mental handicaps. I invoke Godwin's Law. You lose the argument. No. Godwin's Law does not allow you to win or lose arguments. It merely states that this discussion is basically over. Cite please? Why yes, of course: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/ Dave Play by the rules Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
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 he-who-should-not-be-mentioned-in-mailing-lists began the pogrom by mass-murdering those with mental handicaps. I invoke Godwin's Law. You lose the argument. No. Godwin's Law does not allow you to win or lose arguments. It merely states that this discussion is basically over. Cite please? Why yes, of course: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/ Dave Play by the rules Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
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 same thing, and he-who-should-not-be-mentioned-in-mailing-lists began the pogrom by mass-murdering those with mental handicaps. I invoke Godwin's Law. You lose the argument. No. Godwin's Law does not allow you to win or lose arguments. It merely states that this discussion is basically over. Cite please? Why yes, of course: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[2] than others invented later.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. Definitions Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. - Richard Dawkins ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 01/09/2008, at 10:32 AM, David Hobby wrote: No, it's the honest terminology. Abortion kills children, very young children who can't survive outside the womb, and who wouldn't count as human at all except for their human DNA. They're not children yet! Children have *been born*. Late-term abortion kills the unborn at a time when they're likely to survive (except in cases where the abortion is because they won't and they'll probably kill the mother in the process), and is something I strongly oppose (because adoption is an option for delivered healthy babies). But talking about a 12 week embryo as if it has the same status as a 5 year old is both unhelpful and dishonest. Now this happens to be the same term adopted by some religious zealots, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Here's an analogy: It's like using degrees Kelvin to measure temperature, instead of Celsius. The melting point of water is a pretty arbitrary place to put the zero of a temperature scale, just as birth is an arbitrary place to start counting a child's age. No it's not arbitrary at all. It is the point at which it becomes an independent being, which is just as important a milestone as fertilisation, the first cell division, implantation, blastulation, the start of the heart beat, the start of brain activity, the opening of the eyes, or the achieving of full self-awareness. (My wife says it's not fully human until it can do its own laundry... I'm not sure she's helping...). If we're going to talk about abortion, it's only common sense to do it using a scale that starts at conception (or the start of cell division). If you're talking about abortion, yes. If you're talking about personhood, it makes no sense at all. There's a grey area between implantation and birth. I think that if an abortion is to be carried out it should be as early as possible, and certainly before measurable brain activity starts (which is 22 - 24 weeks). After all, we define the end of human life by the end of brain activity. Why not define the start of human life by the same criterion? Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On Aug 31, 2008, at 8:47 PM, William T Goodall wrote: So does celibacy. So not breeding as fruitfully as possible is murdering children? I think that would be a fairly extreme interpretation. However .. there's a lot to be said against the logic of unilaterally equating terminating a pregnancy with murder, especially during the part of gestation when the zygote or fetus cannot possibly be expected to be viable outside the uterus. The fertilized egg looking around for a place to implant* may be a potential life, but it has no viability outside the environment that supports its development until it has divided, differentiated, and matured to the point where it would be viable as a premature infant .. and even then survival is questionable and involves fairly heroic life support and monitoring in a NICU incubator for weeks at least. Viability seems to me to be the best measure of the dividing line between potential human life and actual human life, and to me, a pregnancy that has not actually reached the stage where the fetus is viable as an infant (the grey area being the span between earliest possible viability with heroic life support and the boundary between premature and normal term) should be legally terminable if the mother chooses to do so. (Many states' existing laws on abortion follow roughly this rule, incidentally, and most ban or severely restrict third-trimester abortions, which I'm comfortable with .. it's not like 6 months is any kind of an unreasonable deadline for the decision.) And, IMHO, that should *only* be the mother's decision, and I feel it's reasonable to expect factors like her own personal health (physical and mental), and the number of children she already has, to weigh into that decision. There are very serious issues of manipulative social control in this debate that aren't often discussed (and, when they are, are often dismissed as anti-religious propaganda), but are critical to the debate, and I feel that placing that choice in the hands of the person most impacted by carrying a pregnancy to term, *especially now as we're approaching the 7 billion mark*, best addresses those issues. (*Speaking of implantation, treating fertilization as the standard of the beginning of life would legally define treating ectopic pregnancies as abortion. Fertilized eggs don't always implant in the uterus, and when they implant somewhere else, the consequences can be fairly serious for obvious reasons. It's theoretically possible for an ectopic pregnancy to carry to term, but it would be very dangerous to attempt, and I wouldn't dare suggest forcing a woman to do that. But this is the kind of insanity that we get into if we accept the notion of an egg that's just been fertilized as a baby that would be murdered if it wasn't allowed to implant wherever it landed.) Grotesque oppression isn't okay just because it's been institutionalized. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On Sep 1, 2008, at 3:07 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: Late-term abortion kills the unborn at a time when they're likely to survive (except in cases where the abortion is because they won't and they'll probably kill the mother in the process), and is something I strongly oppose (because adoption is an option for delivered healthy babies). But talking about a 12 week embryo as if it has the same status as a 5 year old is both unhelpful and dishonest. I would go a bit further and call it deliberately disingenuous, but maybe that's just me .. I believe ... that if life gives you lemons, you should make lemonade. And try to find somebody who's life gives them vodka, and have a party. -- Ron White ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Gas prices alternative fuel sources. (was: Sarah Palin)
Dan M wrote: With all due respect, so what? Most people prefer drilling everywhere over $4.00 gasoline. And, the Republicans are winning that argument...the polls show a massive preference now to drill to bring down the prices. Are high gas prices a necessary evil to force technological advancement? I do my share of complaining about gas prices, especially when I sit in almost daily traffic jams burning up that $4.00 a gallon fuel. However, In a debate with my daughter, I brought up the question of, without sufficient motivation, would anyone be aggressively looking for alternative fuel sources? Global Warming certainly would not cause sufficient motivation. Nothing motivates the masses more that money. If we're still buying $1.50 a gallon gas at the pumps, why would anyone be motivated to get rid of that Hummer getting 10 miles per gallon (on a good day!) and find more efficient and sustainable fuel sources? Why would car manufacturers do the research and development to create vehicles with higher fuel efficiency unless they have to? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gas prices alternative fuel sources. (was: Sarah Palin)
On Sep 1, 2008, at 10:58 AM, Gary Nunn wrote: Are high gas prices a necessary evil to force technological advancement? They shouldn't be, and in an economy and social/cultural framework that cultivated proactive thinking at least in the majority, they wouldn't be. The problem is that the existing paradigm tends to go ahead with business as usual until it becomes totally unsustainable, *then* start developing technologies to deal with the crisis, usually when it's way too late and the development starts out way down the declining backside of the curve. This is characteristic of virtually every level of human organization. (And all too often, when the thinking people do propose proactive ways to avoid future crises, they're branded as conspiracy theorists or fringe elements and discredited .. until it turns out that they were right all along. I've said before that this country has a very strong anti-science and anti-knowledge streak in its mainstream culture.) I do my share of complaining about gas prices, especially when I sit in almost daily traffic jams burning up that $4.00 a gallon fuel. However, In a debate with my daughter, I brought up the question of, without sufficient motivation, would anyone be aggressively looking for alternative fuel sources? Global Warming certainly would not cause sufficient motivation. For the majority of people, global warming is a someday it might happen thing that they don't see happening in their lifetimes, and a) see as a much lower priority than paying the bills, buying groceries, and keeping the kids in school, along with other day-to-day immediate realities; and b) feel essentially impotent, on some levels at least, to do anything about. It's not a right here, right now perception to most people, because most people don't watch the horizon as closely as much as many of us here do. They either trust the smart people to fix it somehow before it becomes a crisis, or they don't believe (and in some cases, actively disbelieve!) that it's a real problem at all. This generally tends to play into the keep doing what we're doing until something breaks and then try to fix it tendency of the culture as a whole. Nothing motivates the masses more that money. If we're still buying $1.50 a gallon gas at the pumps, why would anyone be motivated to get rid of that Hummer getting 10 miles per gallon (on a good day!) and find more efficient and sustainable fuel sources? Why would car manufacturers do the research and development to create vehicles with higher fuel efficiency unless they have to? The manufacturers are in fact actively resisting any development of alternate-energy technology that exists right now, and in one rather well-documented case, a major oil company and a major auto manufacturer own rights to patents for an alternate-energy technology that was in fact on the road in modest numbers in CA in the 1990's, patents they refuse to license to anyone even hinting at wanting to build commuter-scale highway-capable electric cars. (Google any combination of Chevron, Cobasys, Ovonics, NiMH, and EV-95 for a wealth of documentation on this.) They're doing this, in part, because they are acutely aware that their profitability has historically been very closely tied to the oil and gasoline energy economy (ignoring the fact that their current decline, and danger of bankruptcy and worse things, is also closely tied to that same economy), and in part because they're all locked in a sort of suboptimal Nash equilibrium where none of them wants to incur the RD costs of opening up the market to commuter-scale EVs just to see all of their competitors cash in on that investment. As long as the one who moves first is the loser in the short term, nobody will move first, until some external force (like a ZEV mandate with teeth in it that they can't sabotage in back room deals) forces them to do so .. and once BEV's that are suitable for the average daily commute (plus a sigma or two) and the infrastructure to support them are in place in at least a critical mass, the market *will* shift for good. The demand is definitely there. But it all comes down to the fact that it's not possible to push changes like this without understanding the micro-, mes0- and macroeconomics of the status quo enough to know where and when to push .. and having had a presidential administration for the past 8 years that has had no inclination to do so, let alone enough understanding of the market forces to do it even if they wanted to, hasn 't helped .. This language proposes a new doctrine for the use of force, that we use force whenever we see an injustice that we want to correct. Like Mother Teresa with first strike capability. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gas prices alternative fuel sources. (was: Sarah Palin)
On 02/09/2008, at 1:58 AM, Gary Nunn wrote: Nothing motivates the masses more that money. If we're still buying $1.50 a gallon gas at the pumps, why would anyone be motivated to get rid of that Hummer getting 10 miles per gallon (on a good day!) and find more efficient and sustainable fuel sources? Because it's the right thing to do? Just because something is cheap does not mean we need to be wasteful. Substitute anyone with most people in that sentence and I'll agree with you. Why would car manufacturers do the research and development to create vehicles with higher fuel efficiency unless they have to? Or unless they see a market for it. But yes. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Gas prices alternative fuel sources. (was: Sarah Palin)
They shouldn't be, and in an economy and social/cultural framework that cultivated proactive thinking at least in the majority, they wouldn't be. The problem is that the existing paradigm tends to go ahead with business as usual until it becomes totally unsustainable, *then* start developing technologies to deal with the crisis, My point exactly. In a Utopian society, the thinkers and scientists would proactively look for solutions with the full support of society in general. However, we are talking about America, a country that thrives on, and worships convenience. It's not convenient to consider Global Warming, it's not convenient to consider alternative energy sources, etc. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Gas prices alternative fuel sources. (was: Sarah Palin)
Because it's the right thing to do? Just because something is cheap does not mean we need to be wasteful. Substitute anyone with most people in that sentence and I'll agree with you. Ok, Most people. I agree, just because something is cheap doesn't mean that we need to be wasteful, but unfortunately 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 and gas prices would necessitate the development of lighter and more efficient vehicles. When I graduated in the early 80's, $4 a gallon gas was something from a post-apocalypse movie. I remember being pissed off that I had to pay the VERY unreasonable price of $1.15 a gallon to fill up my first car. Even science fiction didn't predict high gas prices - most assumed that 30 years in the future an alternative fuel source would be in use. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gas prices alternative fuel sources. (was: Sarah Palin)
Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a Utopian society, the thinkers and scientists would proactively look for solutions with the full support of society in general. However, we are talking about America, a country that thrives on, and worships convenience. It's not convenient to consider Global Warming, it's not convenient to consider alternative energy sources, etc. If convenience implies efficient use of available resources, then this is not a bad thing. The problem with your Utopian society is that there are an infinite number of proactive things that could be done. How to decide which ones to do, since a real society cannot pursue an infinite number of proactive projects? One way to decide is to let free-market prices be the guide. Historically, this has worked well, which surprises some people who think that there must be an intelligent-designer for a system to work well. But in a free-market, prices distill the experience and skills (and perhaps even wisdom) of a vast number of people throughout the world. I think this concept may be the most important lesson that I learned in studying economics. To get this a little bit on topic, there is actually a good science-fiction book that came out recently on this subject, although it is more science than fiction. I recommend The Price of Everything: A Parable of Possibility and Prosperity by Russ Roberts: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8733.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Personhood (was: Sarah Palin)
On 31/08/2008, at 2:54 PM, Olin Elliott wrote: On 30/08/2008 Charlie Bell wrote: ...there are some people that believe human life starts at birth. There are a few (a very few) that believe it starts when humans attain sapience (Peter Singer is one). There are many that think it starts at conception. Most think somewhere between conception and birth, round about when the foetus has a good chance of surviving independently of the placenta. Since you mention Peter Singer, he makes an interesting point. The people who are most concerned about the life of a foetus, which has little if any sentience, are generally unconcerned about the life of other creatures with much greater degrees of sentience. Both sentience and sapience. The point about sapience, or full self- awareness, is that in humans it doesn't occur until 3-4 years of age. And as you point out, adults in many species exhibit at least the reasoning of a human toddler, and in some species that of a child. The list of species that pass the mirror test is growing - recently the European magpie was added to the list. Other corvids (particularly ravens) have been known to be very smart. While I'm not sure about parrots - some of the smarter species may be, and even smaller dippy parrots like rainbow lorikeets can have a vocab of 10 or more words and associate those with actions or objects, certainly our close ape relatives and certain domestic pets pass the test too. (Could we have been inadvertantly breeding for intelligence in our companion critters - I think it likely). So Singer's argument is that we will put down seriously sick or injured animals, and yet a newborn infant that is seriously sick or disabled we will keep alive at all costs when maybe we shouldn't and that a painless and quick end is not only the kind thing to do, it's the right thing to do (and a similar argument but even stronger is made at the other end of life when people not only can feel pain, they can express clearly their wish to end their suffering, but that's for another thread). Our ethics do seem very badly skewed at times. Good post, Olin. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
On 31 Aug 2008, at 03:45, Charlie Bell wrote: If you're trolling back at Will, please stop it. One like him on this list is enough. Who's a naughty boy then? Ad Hominem Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Personhood (was: Sarah Palin)
At 11:54 PM Saturday 8/30/2008, Olin Elliott wrote: When pro-life advocates start defending all life I'll take them seriously. Olin So you're a strict vegan? No Wisecracks About 26 Light Years Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Personhood (was: Sarah Palin)
So you're a strict vegan? No Wisecracks About 26 Light Years Maru I'm a vegetarian, became one some years ago when I just ran out of excuses. Because I like it didn't' seem like enough reason to keep supporting the industry that produces our meat in this age. I'm working toward veganism, and along the way supporting small local dairies that use organic methods and produce on a smaller, more humane scale. Its not perfect, but I feel much better about the impact I have now. Olin - Original Message - From: Ronn! Blankenshipmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 7:07 AM Subject: Re: Personhood (was: Sarah Palin) At 11:54 PM Saturday 8/30/2008, Olin Elliott wrote: When pro-life advocates start defending all life I'll take them seriously. Olin So you're a strict vegan? No Wisecracks About 26 Light Years Maru . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Personhood (was: Sarah Palin)
On 31 Aug 2008, at 16:10, Olin Elliott wrote: So you're a strict vegan? No Wisecracks About 26 Light Years Maru I'm a vegetarian, became one some years ago when I just ran out of excuses. Because I like it didn't' seem like enough reason to keep supporting the industry that produces our meat in this age. I'm working toward veganism, and along the way supporting small local dairies that use organic methods and produce on a smaller, more humane scale. Its not perfect, but I feel much better about the impact I have now. They wouldn't keep those animals locked up behind barbed wire on death row if they weren't guilty of something. Barbecue Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If so, then Microsoft would have great products. - Steve Jobs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
(Sorry about the titles. I just replied about Sarah Palin in the Honest Terminology thread, and in the Sarah Palin thread, I'm talking about honest terminology.) William T Goodall wrote: On 30 Aug 2008, at 04:54, David Hobby wrote: ... William-- I truly admire the subtlety with which you troll. For those of us without moral absolutes that decide the issue, it is difficult to decide how disabled a child has to be so that it is better to kill it at a very young age and invest the resources elsewhere. A fetus isn't a child. That's why there's a different word for it. (To use honest terminology.) You're the one trying to use dishonest terminology. ... William-- No, it's the honest terminology. Abortion kills children, very young children who can't survive outside the womb, and who wouldn't count as human at all except for their human DNA. Now this happens to be the same term adopted by some religious zealots, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Here's an analogy: It's like using degrees Kelvin to measure temperature, instead of Celsius. The melting point of water is a pretty arbitrary place to put the zero of a temperature scale, just as birth is an arbitrary place to start counting a child's age. If we're going to talk about abortion, it's only common sense to do it using a scale that starts at conception (or the start of cell division). ---David common sense and abortion, together in one sentence, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Abortion (was Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin)
On 1 Sep 2008, at 01:32, David Hobby wrote: No, it's the honest terminology. Abortion kills children, very young children who can't survive outside the womb, and who wouldn't count as human at all except for their human DNA. Now this happens to be the same term adopted by some religious zealots, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Here's an analogy: It's like using degrees Kelvin to measure temperature, instead of Celsius. The melting point of water is a pretty arbitrary place to put the zero of a temperature scale, just as birth is an arbitrary place to start counting a child's age. If we're going to talk about abortion, it's only common sense to do it using a scale that starts at conception (or the start of cell division). So a terrorist breaks into a fertility clinic and steals a 1000 frozen zygotes. Then they make a demand - release our compatriots from jail or we'll kill a thousand American children! LOL Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Every Sunday Christians congregate to drink blood in honour of their zombie master. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 1 Sep 2008, at 01:32, David Hobby wrote: (Sorry about the titles. I just replied about Sarah Palin in the Honest Terminology thread, and in the Sarah Palin thread, I'm talking about honest terminology.) William T Goodall wrote: On 30 Aug 2008, at 04:54, David Hobby wrote: ... William-- I truly admire the subtlety with which you troll. For those of us without moral absolutes that decide the issue, it is difficult to decide how disabled a child has to be so that it is better to kill it at a very young age and invest the resources elsewhere. A fetus isn't a child. That's why there's a different word for it. (To use honest terminology.) You're the one trying to use dishonest terminology. ... William-- No, it's the honest terminology. Abortion kills children, very young children who can't survive outside the womb, and who wouldn't count as human at all except for their human DNA. No it doesn't. Children have been born. Now this happens to be the same term adopted by some religious zealots, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Here's an analogy: It's like using degrees Kelvin to measure temperature, instead of Celsius. The melting point of water is a pretty arbitrary place to put the zero of a temperature scale, just as birth is an arbitrary place to start counting a child's age. If we're going to talk about abortion, it's only common sense to do it using a scale that starts at conception (or the start of cell division). Our culture starts measuring age from birth, not conception. I believe some cultures do measure age from conception but not ours. If you start counting zygotes as children then IUDs and morning after pills are infanticide. That's just wackjob wingnut daft. Crazy Talk Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The three chief virtues of a programmer are: Laziness, Impatience and Hubris - Larry Wall ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
William T Goodall wrote: On 1 Sep 2008, at 01:32, David Hobby wrote: ... William-- No, it's the honest terminology. Abortion kills children, very young children who can't survive outside the womb, and who wouldn't count as human at all except for their human DNA. No it doesn't. Children have been born. And being born makes a big difference? Why? There's a continuum. It starts at conception, or first cell division, or whatever. (I guess you want to say at implantation?) It goes up to around the onset of puberty. Beings are called children in most of that continuum. So it is reasonable to take the word children, and use it to describe beings from conception through puberty. Do you have a better term? Our culture starts measuring age from birth, not conception. I believe some cultures do measure age from conception but not ours. For the purposes of this discussion, it makes more sense to start at conception. Unlike some people, I think it would help to have some clarity. If you start counting zygotes as children then IUDs and morning after pills are infanticide. That's just wackjob wingnut daft. Well, they are preventing things from living. It's a big leap to claim that's the same as killing, and another to proclaim that whatever was killed was an infant. I suggest that it's more effective to target the holes in an opposing argument, rather than to just fight blindly. ---David So why do people say unborn child? Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 1 Sep 2008, at 02:32, David Hobby wrote: William T Goodall wrote: On 1 Sep 2008, at 01:32, David Hobby wrote: ... If you start counting zygotes as children then IUDs and morning after pills are infanticide. That's just wackjob wingnut daft. Well, they are preventing things from living. So does celibacy. So not breeding as fruitfully as possible is murdering children? It's a big leap to claim that's the same as killing, and another to proclaim that whatever was killed was an infant. I suggest that it's more effective to target the holes in an opposing argument, rather than to just fight blindly. ---David So why do people say unborn child? Maru. Because they have an agenda. 1984 Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion (was Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin)
At 08:16 PM Sunday 8/31/2008, William T Goodall wrote: On 1 Sep 2008, at 01:32, David Hobby wrote: No, it's the honest terminology. Abortion kills children, very young children who can't survive outside the womb, and who wouldn't count as human at all except for their human DNA. Now this happens to be the same term adopted by some religious zealots, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Here's an analogy: It's like using degrees Kelvin to measure temperature, instead of Celsius. The melting point of water is a pretty arbitrary place to put the zero of a temperature scale, just as birth is an arbitrary place to start counting a child's age. If we're going to talk about abortion, it's only common sense to do it using a scale that starts at conception (or the start of cell division). So a terrorist breaks into a fertility clinic and steals a 1000 frozen zygotes. Then they make a demand - release our compatriots from jail or we'll kill a thousand American children! Or as in the relatively recent (last season?) Law Order episode where some of the frozen embryos had been put into storage by a couple before she was deployed to Iraq in case something happened to her there, and she was KIA and so her husband shot and killed the one who had stolen them because that act of holding them hostage to make some kind of protest point destroyed his chance of raising their children? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 30 Aug 2008, at 04:54, David Hobby wrote: William T Goodall wrote: Sarah Palin ... Vice President ... She's a crazy person. With four kids already, and at an age when the risk of fetal abnormalities is massively escalated, she gets pregnant again and when the tests show it has Down Syndrome she doesn't abort. She's wealthy enough that the coping will be done by servants so her moral position won't inconvenience her political career (and boost it with other nutters) but it's a terrible, selfish, morally bankrupt example to set. William-- I truly admire the subtlety with which you troll. For those of us without moral absolutes that decide the issue, it is difficult to decide how disabled a child has to be so that it is better to kill it at a very young age and invest the resources elsewhere. A fetus isn't a child. That's why there's a different word for it. (To use honest terminology.) You're the one trying to use dishonest terminology. Every Sperm is Sacred Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 30 Aug 2008, at 03:54, William T Goodall wrote: She's a crazy person. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html Told you Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. - Richard Dawkins ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html Told you Maru William T Goodall I'm reading that blog entry a little different. She appears to be advocating to allow the debate and discussion of both. I didn't read anything that shows her as completely supporting creationism instead of evolution. It reads like she's trying to be politically correct as not to offend either camp: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. Asked by the Anchorage Daily News whether she believed in evolution, Palin declined to answer, but said that I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be, she said. I don't think I would want it to be taught as an equal alternative, but she's right, a healthy (and controlled) debate about a socially sensitive subject could be a healthy and useful life skill to develop. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 31/08/2008, at 12:50 AM, Gary Nunn wrote: McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html Told you Maru William T Goodall I'm reading that blog entry a little different. She appears to be advocating to allow the debate and discussion of both. That's the current tactic from the creationists trying to get round the various court rulings. Teach the controversy and Teach both sides. I didn't read anything that shows her as completely supporting creationism instead of evolution. If you support teaching both sides then you're a creationist. It's a code word. I don't think I would want it to be taught as an equal alternative, but she's right, a healthy (and controlled) debate about a socially sensitive subject could be a healthy and useful life skill to develop. Not in school, and not in science class. In comparative religion, maybe, but it's hard enough to teach good science without adding a load of creation myths to the course. And that's the issue - Both sides? No - because if they allow both sides they have to allow ALL sides. That means Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Aboriginal... If you really wanted to cover what EVERY religion says about creation, there wouldn't be time for any science at all. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think I would want it to be taught as an equal alternative, but she's right, a healthy (and controlled) debate about a socially sensitive subject could be a healthy and useful life skill to develop. People could use that skill in on-line discussions! Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 30 Aug 2008, at 16:19, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think I would want it to be taught as an equal alternative, but she's right, a healthy (and controlled) debate about a socially sensitive subject could be a healthy and useful life skill to develop. People could use that skill in on-line discussions! That assumes there aren't crazy religionists trying to play the system to promote their superstitious pernicious garbage. Vigilance Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
Not in school, and not in science class. In comparative religion, maybe, but it's hard enough to teach good science without adding a load of creation myths to the course. I agree, not is science class, and I did specifically say that it shouldn't be taught as an equal alternative. Creationism should be taught from an historical perspective. It played a significant part in history, religion and society - but your right, that debate isn't appropriate in science class. And that's the issue - Both sides? No - because if they allow both sides they have to allow ALL sides. That means Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Aboriginal... If you really wanted to cover what EVERY religion says about creation, there wouldn't be time for any science at all. Charlie. You forgot to mention the other viable alternative to evolution: the Flying Spaghetti Monster :-) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
William T Goodall wrote: That assumes there aren't crazy religionists trying to play the system to promote their superstitious pernicious garbage. When it's split between crazy creationists in one side and mass murdering atheist baby killers on the other side, I think I side with the creationists. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Debate (was Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin)
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 8:32 AM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: People could use that skill in on-line discussions! That assumes there aren't crazy religionists trying to play the system to promote their superstitious pernicious garbage. Much more than that. The essence of reasonable debate is that the participants are armed with sufficient education and discipline to resist irrationality and form arguments that provoke greater understanding, knowledge and perhaps wisdom. For many years now, I have believed that this is one of the ways in which the Internet is shaping the long-term future. Despite the flame wars, gossip and general nonsense that happens in on-line communities, I do believe that many people are rediscovering the value of argument, the power of diverse viewpoints in problem-solving. This is the stuff that stimulates creativity, I believe -- creativity which, even if limited to a minority, can have a profound positive impact on all. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 30 Aug 2008, at 17:10, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: William T Goodall wrote: That assumes there aren't crazy religionists trying to play the system to promote their superstitious pernicious garbage. When it's split between crazy creationists in one side and mass murdering atheist baby killers on the other side, I think I side with the creationists. Why take sides? Peanut gallery Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Debate (was Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin)
On 30 Aug 2008, at 17:13, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 8:32 AM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People could use that skill in on-line discussions! That assumes there aren't crazy religionists trying to play the system to promote their superstitious pernicious garbage. Much more than that. The essence of reasonable debate is that the participants are armed with sufficient education and discipline to resist irrationality and form arguments that provoke greater understanding, knowledge and perhaps wisdom. And there are people who know that they will lose a reasonable debate and therefore deliberately sabotage reasonable debate by using lies and illogic and any other dirty tricks they can come up with instead of reasonable debate. Creationists are such a group. Liars Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ You are coming to a sad realization. Cancel or Allow? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On Aug 30, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Gary Nunn wrote: McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html Told you Maru William T Goodall I'm reading that blog entry a little different. She appears to be advocating to allow the debate and discussion of both. I didn't read anything that shows her as completely supporting creationism instead of evolution. It reads like she's trying to be politically correct as not to offend either camp: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. Asked by the Anchorage Daily News whether she believed in evolution, Palin declined to answer, but said that I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be, she said. I don't think I would want it to be taught as an equal alternative, but she's right, a healthy (and controlled) debate about a socially sensitive subject could be a healthy and useful life skill to develop. Except that teach the controversy, i.e. treating creationism as a competing scientific theority to evolution, is a stated (and documented) tactic of the intelligent design movement, specifically as a means of positioning creationism as a legitimate scientific theory. IMHO, even *admitting* creation into a classroom science discussion is already losing the battle. Creationism is religious doctrine dressed up as pseudoscience, and creation science is a pseudoscientific rationalization of creationism based on flawed and outdated scientific understanding and teaching resources, and intelligent design is a creative rebranding of creation science with some superficial wording changes (and this is documented in the Kitzmiller v Dover case) to make it sound less religious and more scientific. It's not science, and dressing it up in scientific-sounding language doesn't change that. (It *does* make it *look* like science to people who don't understand what science *is* or how it works .. to them, creation science and evolution *do indeed* sound like competing theories of roughly equal merit, and they *do indeed* see the illusion of a choice between the two, with supernatural consequences.) Listen, when you get home tonight, you're gonna be confronted by the instinct to drink a lot. Trust that instinct. Manage the pain. Don't try to be a hero. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On Aug 30, 2008, at 10:04 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: I don't think I would want it to be taught as an equal alternative, but she's right, a healthy (and controlled) debate about a socially sensitive subject could be a healthy and useful life skill to develop. Not in school, and not in science class. In comparative religion, maybe, but it's hard enough to teach good science without adding a load of creation myths to the course. And that's the issue - Both sides? No - because if they allow both sides they have to allow ALL sides. That means Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Aboriginal... If you really wanted to cover what EVERY religion says about creation, there wouldn't be time for any science at all. Charlie. I'd say it's quite possible to build an entire course curriculum around the study of and comparisons between creation myths. And it would definitely be an interesting course. (Especially for the fundamentalists who want creationism taught in public schools, although they would almost certainly not like teaching creationism in classes where the competition with other belief systems is compeltely legitimate .. :D ) Giving kickbacks to the wealthy isn't creating wealth, it's just giving kickbacks to the wealthy. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Debate (was Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin)
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 9:43 AM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: And there are people who know that they will lose a reasonable debate and therefore deliberately sabotage reasonable debate by using lies and illogic and any other dirty tricks they can come up with instead of reasonable debate. I hope you can deal with the fact that I pretty much agree, though I generally am wary of generalizations. When people try to use science to defend their religious beliefs, the science almost inevitably is poor. For me, faith has to do with the inexplicable and uncontrollable. I guess I'm particularly dismayed when people regard a scientific explanation -- evolution is the prime example -- as a threat to their faith. That makes zero sense to me. Now that I think of it, there's sort of an opposite kind of childish thinking that dismays me. I was at a friend's funeral last week and his town's mayor said something like, God must have needed another angel and he wanted one of the best. Ack! When I hear people say stuff like that, William, I can totally understand why you and others find religion offensive. The idea that a Supreme Being caused a motorcycle to kill my friend because He needed an angel... that's insane. My wife called it spiritual immaturity. She's quicker than I am to find compassion. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Sarah Palin
William T Goodall wrote: That assumes there aren't crazy religionists trying to play the system to promote their superstitious pernicious garbage. When it's split between crazy creationists in one side and mass murdering atheist baby killers on the other, I think I side with the creationists. Alberto Monteiro That is not thinking, Alberto, that is feeling!~) I unequivocally side with the mass murdering atheists!~). I wonder if Sarah Palin is deliberately using her Down Syndrom pregnancy with four kids already, and at an age when the risk of fetal abnormalities is massively escalated? By not aborting, her moral position has advanced her political career. It IS a terrible, selfish, morally bankrupt example to set, especially if McCain wins and she is a doddering heartbeat away from the presidency. What is really scary is there are several Supreme Court justices older than Mc Cain... Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Sarah Palin
William T Goodall wrote: That assumes there aren't crazy religionists trying to play the system to promote their superstitious pernicious garbage. When it's split between crazy creationists in one side and mass murdering atheist baby killers on the other, I think I side with the creationists. Alberto Monteiro That is not thinking, Alberto, that is feeling!~) I unequivocally side with the mass murdering atheists!~). I wonder if Sarah Palin is deliberately using her Down Syndrom pregnancy with four kids already, and at an age when the risk of fetal abnormalities is massively escalated? By not aborting, her moral position has advanced her political career. It IS a terrible, selfish, morally bankrupt example to set, especially if McCain wins and she is a doddering heartbeat away from the presidency. What is really scary is there are several Supreme Court justices older than Mc Cain... Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
On Aug 30, 2008, at 1:47 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: What is really scary is there are several Supreme Court justices older than Mc Cain... Jon And that's what it comes down to. Whoever is elected this year will very likely be appointing Supreme Court justices, and the positions most likely to open up are on the liberal side of a very shaky 5-4 liberal majority, and the four conservative justices include at least one (Alito) who has gone on record as being dedicated to overturning most of the hard-won rulings of the 1970's (including Roe v Wade) that secured much of our current freedom today. This, while DHHS has been pushing for a change to the CFR that legally defines abortion so broadly that it includes almost all hormonal oral contraceptives, and gives doctors and pharmacists legal carte blanche to deny treatment and refuse to fill prescriptions based on conscience and religious convictions .. which in the worst case could open the door for states, freed by an overturned Roe v Wade ruling, to outlaw abortion *as defined by the DHHS-amended CFR definition of abortion* at will. Not small stakes in this election. Not at all. She was a supersized meal of pop culture. We gobbled her down—in Playboy or on the E! network—felt a little sick afterward and then blamed her, like heart patients suing a fast-food chain. -- James Poniewozik in an essay about Anna Nicole Smith in Time magazine ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
Considering the fact that McCain just announced his VP running mate today, it's interesting that there are domain names associating Sarah Palin with Vice President registered back in June 2008. The domain name VicePresidentSarahPalin.com was registered on June 14, 2008. Nothing illegal or underhanded about that, just interesting that people knew or suspected more than two months ago. Gary Nunn or the right to lifers started lobbying for her back then... jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On Aug 30, 2008, at 2:26 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: or the right to lifers started lobbying for her back then... jon Not entirely inconceivable, that. She doesn't have the somewhat negative name recognition that Lieberman or Huckabee have, which (at least temporarily) dodges some of the effects of choosing a fundamentalist running mate, so it's entirely possible that she was the only candidate he could choose who wouldn't immediately scare off more moderate voters, but at the same time wouldn't alienate a very large fund-raising base of hardcore fundamentalists whose support he really needs if he wants to have any real chance of winning the general election. This language proposes a new doctrine for the use of force, that we use force whenever we see an injustice that we want to correct. Like Mother Teresa with first strike capability. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
The environmental groups are going to go after Palin hard. She has supported drilling in sensitive wildlife areas and she allowed (even sanctioned) the use of airplanes to slaughter wolves in Alaska last year. See this, which came out yesterday from Defenders of Wildlife: http://www.defendersactionfund.org/http://www.defendersactionfund.org/ Olin - Original Message - From: Jon Louis Mannmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 11:47 AM Subject: Sarah Palin William T Goodall wrote: That assumes there aren't crazy religionists trying to play the system to promote their superstitious pernicious garbage. When it's split between crazy creationists in one side and mass murdering atheist baby killers on the other, I think I side with the creationists. Alberto Monteiro That is not thinking, Alberto, that is feeling!~) I unequivocally side with the mass murdering atheists!~). I wonder if Sarah Palin is deliberately using her Down Syndrom pregnancy with four kids already, and at an age when the risk of fetal abnormalities is massively escalated? By not aborting, her moral position has advanced her political career. It IS a terrible, selfish, morally bankrupt example to set, especially if McCain wins and she is a doddering heartbeat away from the presidency. What is really scary is there are several Supreme Court justices older than Mc Cain... Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Sarah Palin
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Olin Elliott Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 3:12 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Sarah Palin The environmental groups are going to go after Palin hard. She has supported drilling in sensitive wildlife areas and she allowed (even sanctioned) the use of airplanes to slaughter wolves in Alaska last year. See this, which came out yesterday from Defenders of Wildlife: http://www.defendersactionfund.org/http://www.defendersactionfund.org/ With all due respect, so what? Most people prefer drilling everywhere over $4.00 gasoline. And, the Republicans are winning that argument...the polls show a massive preference now to drill to bring down the prices. Her main risk for McCain is that she's very inexperienced on the national stage. She may say something that makes her look like one of the not ready for prime time players. No matter what one thinks about Obama, he's been around the rough and tumble of Chicago for years and has won against the Clinton machine. His speech last Thursday got plaudits from Romney's former advisor and he looks like the most ready Democrat to fight since Bill. He will make more mistakes, as will McCainbut Palin may make a laughingstock of herself. I am very interested in talking with my mother-in-law about this. She was one of the older women who thought there was sexist coverage favoring Obama. My guess is she'll laugh off Palin's pick as weak. Palin is a Hail Mary pass for the Republicans. Most don't work. But, every once in a while, to use another analogy, one wins the big pot by drawing to an inside straight. So, we'll have to stay tuned. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
Jon wrote: What is really scary is there are several Supreme Court justices older than Mc Cain... Ah, been watching Real Time eh? Doug Gnu Rulz Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
Jon Louis Mann wrote: When it's split between crazy creationists in one side and mass murdering atheist baby killers on the other, I think I side with the creationists. That is not thinking, Alberto, that is feeling!~) I unequivocally side with the mass murdering atheists!~). I don't. When atheist-based ideology condemns every baby with Down Syndrome to be search and destroyed, it's a message that people with Down Syndrome should also be hunted and gassed. 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 he-who-should-not-be-mentioned-in-mailing-lists began the pogrom by mass-murdering those with mental handicaps. Exclusion is usually irreversible, when you started excluding people from Humanity the final outcome is that only _one_ group remains. I wonder if Sarah Palin is deliberately using her Down Syndrom pregnancy with four kids already, and at an age when the risk of fetal abnormalities is massively escalated? This is nonsense. There's no way (at least for euploid adults) to make the chance of having a Down Syndrome baby more than a ridiculously small value. Even for very old women the rate is still less than 5%. By not aborting, her moral position has advanced her political career. It IS a terrible, selfish, morally bankrupt example to set, especially if McCain wins and she is a doddering heartbeat away from the presidency. So, you think that someone does the _right_ thing, it's only because it benefits the political career? In other words, if I am in a position, say, to accept a bribe, and I don't accept, I only do it because it will benefit me? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
Dan M wrote: With all due respect, so what? Most people prefer drilling everywhere over $4.00 gasoline. And, the Republicans are winning that argument...the polls show a massive preference now to drill to bring down the prices. Right now, this is one of the two arguments I (internally) would justify voting for Obama (if I could cast my vote, 10.000 km away...). Less drilling means less oil supply, means higher oil prices, means more money in _my_ pocket :-P Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
On 30 Aug 2008, at 23:48, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Jon Louis Mann wrote: When it's split between crazy creationists in one side and mass murdering atheist baby killers on the other, I think I side with the creationists. That is not thinking, Alberto, that is feeling!~) I unequivocally side with the mass murdering atheists!~). I don't. When atheist-based ideology condemns every baby with Down Syndrome to be search and destroyed, it's a message that people with Down Syndrome should also be hunted and gassed. That doesn't follow at all. That's the kind of illogical argument religionists make, like if we allow gay marriage they'll be marrying donkeys next!. By this line of reasoning Ashkenazi Jews are trying to commit genocide on themselves by practising genetic screening for inherited diseases! 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 he-who-should-not-be-mentioned-in-mailing-lists began the pogrom by mass-murdering those with mental handicaps. I invoke Godwin's Law. You lose the argument. Exclusion is usually irreversible, when you started excluding people from Humanity the final outcome is that only _one_ group remains. Abortion and contraception are not excluding people from humanity. I wonder if Sarah Palin is deliberately using her Down Syndrom pregnancy with four kids already, and at an age when the risk of fetal abnormalities is massively escalated? This is nonsense. There's no way (at least for euploid adults) to make the chance of having a Down Syndrome baby more than a ridiculously small value. Even for very old women the rate is still less than 5%. By not aborting, her moral position has advanced her political career. It IS a terrible, selfish, morally bankrupt example to set, especially if McCain wins and she is a doddering heartbeat away from the presidency. So, you think that someone does the _right_ thing, it's only because it benefits the political career? In other words, if I am in a position, say, to accept a bribe, and I don't accept, I only do it because it will benefit me? If it makes you feel good about your probity that's a benefit :-) Simple Pleasures Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
On 31/08/2008, at 8:48 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: I don't. When atheist-based ideology condemns every baby with Down Syndrome to be search and destroyed, it's a message that people with Down Syndrome should also be hunted and gassed. There is no atheist-based ideology, and what you've written here is frankly offensive crap. Atheism means one thing and one thing only - that I don't believe in god. I don't believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus either, and there's no aSantaist ideology. Morals and ethics may have much grounding in religion, but they're not exclusively the preserve of religion (why else are the least religious western democracies the safest, healthiest and best educated?). What you've done here is confused atheist with arsehole. As to the second part: there are some people that believe human life starts at birth. There are a few (a very few) that believe it starts when humans attain sapience (Peter Singer is one). There are many that think it starts at conception. Most think somewhere between conception and birth, round about when the foetus has a good chance of surviving independently of the placenta. Framing the very hard choice to terminate a Down's pregnancy detected during the first trimester of pregnancy as equivalent to hunting and gassing people with Down's is sickening. It's not the same thing, neither is it a slippery slope. If you're trolling back at Will, please stop it. One like him on this list is enough. If you're genuinely making this comparison and skirting Godwin in the process, then please take another look at what you've written and how dangerous it is to equate atheism with Lysenkoism and Nazism. The non-religious are one of the last outgroups, and are increasingly overtly discriminated against, and framing things the way you have is actually a step in the direction you're warning against. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sarah Palin
Dan M With all due respect, so what? Most people prefer drilling everywhere over $4.00 gasoline. And, the Republicans are winning that argument...the polls show a massive preference now to drill to bring down the prices. Honestly, what _short-term_ effect will drilling in Anwar and on our coasts have on prices? And isn't any long term effect in all probability going to be dwarfed by the increase in demand? IMO, the push to drill in sensitive areas has nothing to do with prices and everything to do with big oil making bigger money. Doug Intellectual Dishonesty Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Personhood (was: Sarah Palin)
On 30/08/2008 Charlie Bell wrote: ...there are some people that believe human life starts at birth. There are a few (a very few) that believe it starts when humans attain sapience (Peter Singer is one). There are many that think it starts at conception. Most think somewhere between conception and birth, round about when the foetus has a good chance of surviving independently of the placenta. Since you mention Peter Singer, he makes an interesting point. The people who are most concerned about the life of a foetus, which has little if any sentience, are generally unconcerned about the life of other creatures with much greater degrees of sentience. Chimpanzees and gorillas are at least the intellectual equals of small children or seriously disabled humans, and yet somehow that counts for nothing in most people's moral equation. (A lot of people are sentimental about animals, but when push comes to shove, very few people really stand behind the idea that animals have rights). Koko the gorilla reputedly scores between 70 and 90 on human IQ tests (which puts her dangerously close to our President) and even if that is an exaggerated claim, she is obviously a sensitive creature, capable of loving and mourning for lost loved ones (including her pet cat and her long time mate). I had the opportunity to meet Washoe the Chimpanzee on a tour of the Chimpanzee Human Comm unication Institue before her death this past year, and looking into her face left me no doubt that she was a person, and one of great dignity and wisdom as well. Even Border Collies have been shown to have linguistic understanding equal to that of young children, and probably much more independent judgement. Without falling back on religion and mystical concepts souls I don't see how there is any rational definition of person that includes human beings and doesn't include a lot of non-human animals as well. And of course, all these defenses of human dignity by religious believers are pretty recent historically -- it wasn't all that long ago that the churches were finding ways to justify the extermination of native peoples and slavery by arguing about whether different groups of people had souls. Abraham Lincoln countered those kinds of arguments by noting, early in his career, that he wasn't sure if black were people were the intellectual equals of whites or not, but that it didn't have any effect on his view of slavery, because it was wrong and cruel either way. Jeremy Bentham put it like this: The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but rather, Can they suffer? When pro-life advocates start defending all life I'll take them seriously. Olin - Original Message - From: Charlie Bellmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 7:45 PM Subject: Re: Sarah Palin On 31/08/2008, at 8:48 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: I don't. When atheist-based ideology condemns every baby with Down Syndrome to be search and destroyed, it's a message that people with Down Syndrome should also be hunted and gassed. There is no atheist-based ideology, and what you've written here is frankly offensive crap. Atheism means one thing and one thing only - that I don't believe in god. I don't believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus either, and there's no aSantaist ideology. Morals and ethics may have much grounding in religion, but they're not exclusively the preserve of religion (why else are the least religious western democracies the safest, healthiest and best educated?). What you've done here is confused atheist with arsehole. As to the second part: there are some people that believe human life starts at birth. There are a few (a very few) that believe it starts when humans attain sapience (Peter Singer is one). There are many that think it starts at conception. Most think somewhere between conception and birth, round about when the foetus has a good chance of surviving independently of the placenta. Framing the very hard choice to terminate a Down's pregnancy detected during the first trimester of pregnancy as equivalent to hunting and gassing people with Down's is sickening. It's not the same thing, neither is it a slippery slope. If you're trolling back at Will, please stop it. One like him on this list is enough. If you're genuinely making this comparison and skirting Godwin in the process, then please take another look at what you've written and how dangerous it is to equate atheism with Lysenkoism and Nazism. The non-religious are one of the last outgroups, and are increasingly overtly discriminated against, and framing things the way you have is actually a step in the direction you're warning against. Charlie. ___ http
Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
Considering the fact that McCain just announced his VP running mate today, it's interesting that there are domain names associating Sarah Palin with Vice President registered back in June 2008. The domain name VicePresidentSarahPalin.com was registered on June 14, 2008. Nothing illegal or underhanded about that, just interesting that people knew or suspected more than two months ago. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
On 30 Aug 2008, at 02:36, Gary Nunn wrote: Considering the fact that McCain just announced his VP running mate today, it's interesting that there are domain names associating Sarah Palin with Vice President registered back in June 2008. The domain name VicePresidentSarahPalin.com was registered on June 14, 2008. Nothing illegal or underhanded about that, just interesting that people knew or suspected more than two months ago. She's a crazy person. With four kids already, and at an age when the risk of fetal abnormalities is massively escalated, she gets pregnant again and when the tests show it has Down Syndrome she doesn't abort. She's wealthy enough that the coping will be done by servants so her moral position won't inconvenience her political career (and boost it with other nutters) but it's a terrible, selfish, morally bankrupt example to set. Sick Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance - Steve Ballmer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
William T Goodall wrote: Sarah Palin ... Vice President ... She's a crazy person. With four kids already, and at an age when the risk of fetal abnormalities is massively escalated, she gets pregnant again and when the tests show it has Down Syndrome she doesn't abort. She's wealthy enough that the coping will be done by servants so her moral position won't inconvenience her political career (and boost it with other nutters) but it's a terrible, selfish, morally bankrupt example to set. William-- I truly admire the subtlety with which you troll. For those of us without moral absolutes that decide the issue, it is difficult to decide how disabled a child has to be so that it is better to kill it at a very young age and invest the resources elsewhere. (To use honest terminology.) Thank you for bringing this dilemma into focus. ---David Dying machines made of meat, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
