tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post8502199613382168058..comments2024-03-28T04:58:13.341-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Cheer up! There's still science! (non-political)David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-16827973895154421192008-10-24T08:27:00.000-07:002008-10-24T08:27:00.000-07:00There are far more extreme Ethical Arguments that ...There are far more extreme Ethical Arguments that have been made about how old a child can be before he/she is human (six months is something that I've heard...).<BR/><BR/>Personally, I prefer to believe that a woman has more ethical RIGHTS than an unborn child, but along with those rights comes responsibility.<BR/><BR/>A woman who has behaved responsibly, and through fluke or attack is pregnant, I believe should be allowed to use abortion as birth control.<BR/><BR/>But I say to any who would ban abortion entirely -- If I was forced to bear a baby that would be blind by the age of five, and dead by the age of ten, I'd kill it immediately after it was born. Murder or not, that is the responsible thing to do. Why have someone bear ten babies that all die, when they could save the money, and possible bear one that might survive?<BR/><BR/>It's an extreme example, but it does exist in this world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-62994331408311606402008-10-20T22:00:00.000-07:002008-10-20T22:00:00.000-07:00RE: AbortionI look at abortion as a problem of tre...RE: Abortion<BR/><BR/>I look at abortion as a problem of trespass. So, here is an analogy.<BR/><BR/>You live in a cabin in the woods. It is deep winter and certain death to stay outside. You own the only refuge around for miles.<BR/><BR/>Someone knocks on your door. You can invite him in and save his life - or not. It is your house and you are not obligated to help. If he barges in or steals from you, then kicking him out is self defense. Otherwise, I think it is murder to actively force your guest back out into the cold to die after you’ve asked him in.<BR/><BR/>My solution, at least partially, is to allow mothers (and fathers?) to sell their parental rights. Right now, a pregnant woman who does not want to be a mother has only two choices: abort, or go through nine months of inconvenience (at best) to then give her child away for free. Let her profit from her pregnancy and she might just see it through.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-58744837861154040372008-10-20T18:02:00.000-07:002008-10-20T18:02:00.000-07:00wrt Rob's observations on Mormonism.The 'Telestria...wrt Rob's observations on Mormonism.<BR/><BR/>The 'Telestrial Kingdom' certainly sounds like a more civilised alternative to dealing with wrongdoers than the control freakery implicit in the 'repent <I>or *else*</I>' crowd. (is the FSM civilised, d'you think?) It reminds me of the closing stanzas of a medieval poem 'Piers the Plowman' (actually, a discussion of it in a book of English history) which hints at the same thing: of sinners being released and eventually redeemed beyond the grave.Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-65883101093136507292008-10-20T17:59:00.000-07:002008-10-20T17:59:00.000-07:00Steve, you are welcome to your opinion. Though I...Steve, you are welcome to your opinion. Though I can't even begin to see any evidence to support your suppositions about Barack Obama. They seem to be "gut" impressions. And thus, similar to how "gut" Bush has ruled...<BR/><BR/>...and diametrically opposite to what Obama is about, which is evidence-based argument and consensus building.<BR/><BR/>No, I did not give a complete list of my reasons for opposing McCain and the GOPs, I gave a short, partial list of "conservative" reasons to oppose them. Those reasons are huge enough to put a steep and overwhelming burden of proof on anyone who contends that "Mr. 905 Bush supporter" McCain will be different. Especially since he has made ZERO effort to banish any Bushites or lobbyists from his inner circle.<BR/><BR/>None at all.<BR/><BR/>As for personal character, please do this one thing. Read this article by conservative columnist David Brooks, of all people: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17brooks.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin<BR/><BR/>I mean, dang! McCain is known for his rages. He reacts emotionally. He blinks like mad and sticks out his tongue.... and what do you have on Obama? His one trait that stands out above all others is a perpetual, Vulcan-logical calm.<BR/><BR/>Please read that one piece.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55077762144316895932008-10-20T17:51:00.000-07:002008-10-20T17:51:00.000-07:00Atomicsmith got in before me Steve.Please tell us ...Atomicsmith got in before me Steve.<BR/><BR/>Please tell us what your impression of Obama is and why it makes him so unpalatable to you. Not doing so makes you sound like a simple troll.<BR/><BR/>(Hey, your's is an opinion. We don't hang you for those... yet)Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-23679069188669481352008-10-20T17:46:00.000-07:002008-10-20T17:46:00.000-07:00>> I sincerely and fervently hope your view ...>> I sincerely and fervently hope your view of Obama is more accurate than mine, because if mine is even half accurate, he's going to make Bush seem reasonable by comparison. (And if it turns out I'm right, I reserve the right to say "I warned you - but did you listen?<BR/><BR/>Your reservation of that right is null and void unless you elaborate on this!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15030764857062052822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17555862519777901472008-10-20T17:31:00.000-07:002008-10-20T17:31:00.000-07:00@David: Your post to Reason magazine is an excelle...@David: Your post to Reason magazine is an excellent explanation of why you're voting the way you are. You're voting *against* a party for president, plain and simple. And you have good reasons for it - I accept those.<BR/><BR/>*I*, on the other hand, am voting for the individual I believe will do the least long term damage to this country in the job. I no longer have any hope that either candidate will do *no* damage -- I'm simply minimizing the damage I expect. McCain will do less long term damage by his nature, and will find it difficult to do short term damage in a Democrat-controlled congress, IMHO.<BR/><BR/>Now, that may be a stress-induced delusion as you implied in a previous response to one of my comments. Maybe you're right. Am I stressed about this election? Sure. Frustration is a significant cause of stress.<BR/><BR/>See, It's very frustrating to clearly see the economic train wreck that will arise from electing a particular individual. It's frustrating trying to convince your friends that the particular individual is *not* what they claim to be, and that they're only really voting for that person in a knee-jerk reaction against the previous individual to hold the office. It's frustrating knowing that the individual isn't even remotely a good representative of their own party, and will drive that party further to the edges of insanity. And it's frustrating seeing that individual manipulate the press and public perception such that it's single-mindedly focused on the bad side of their opponent, while they get a free ride. Yeah, the Bush campaign in 2000 was extraordinarily frustrating to me. :P<BR/><BR/>Alas, repeating it in 2008 with Obama, for nearly the same exact reasons, is just as frustrating, if not moreso. His flaws seem clear to me, just as clear as Bush's flaws were obvious in 2000. And yet, it appears we're doomed to make the same mistake. (And will likely repeat it in 2012 because Obama will *still* be able to blame Bush for his failings...)<BR/><BR/>From where I sit now, it seems very likely you'll get your wish, David. I don't expect any October Surprise (or if there is one, it will likely backfire). I sincerely and fervently hope your view of Obama is more accurate than mine, because if mine is even half accurate, he's going to make Bush seem reasonable by comparison. (And if it turns out I'm right, I reserve the right to say "I warned you - but did you listen? Nooooo..." I've had to say that a lot about Bush in the last few years, so I've got practice.)<BR/><BR/>I also hope you're right that spanking the GOP will cause them to become better. But I seriously doubt it. *I* believe the bad elements are going to start calling McCain a RINO again the day after election day, blame their loss on the moderates in the party, and spend the next 8 years purging them. So when the pendulum inevitably swings back after 8 years of Obama, what we get will be *far* worse than Bush. IMHO. So I *really* hope you're right about this and I'm totally wrong. Keep an eye on the conservative blogs the day after election day and we'll know...<BR/><BR/>Until then, I think I'll take a break from blogging and commenting -- I don't think I can stand any more Kos-like rants directed my way. (As I expect this post to generate...) Maybe after the election the blogosphere will calm down and reasonable discourse can resume.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and @Rob: Regarding your comment about supporting the President in times of war? I *didn't* support Bush back then -- I thought the invasion of Iraq was the stupidest thing he could do. All things considered, I reserve my right to protest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-43794909740997040232008-10-20T16:59:00.000-07:002008-10-20T16:59:00.000-07:00Hey, some good news!New material seems to get clos...Hey, some good news!<BR/><BR/>New material seems to get close to 100% absorption of solar radiation. Seems to use multiple materials that capture both florescence and phosphorescence -- the last bit being the key. The ingredients are a bit pricey, but I think this accidental discovery will put a lot of scientists onto the right path; <A HREF="http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-39807-113.html" REL="nofollow"> LINK </A>Fake_William_Shatnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027049743048836086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67009682822434649262008-10-20T13:12:00.000-07:002008-10-20T13:12:00.000-07:00Daggat's latest is a must-read:http://daggatt.blog...Daggat's latest is a must-read:<BR/><BR/>http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2008/10/security-theater.htmlDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67308734883693105872008-10-20T12:32:00.000-07:002008-10-20T12:32:00.000-07:00Reason Magazine asked 100 authors a set of questio...Reason Magazine asked 100 authors a set of questions about this election.<BR/>They'll certainly cull the length of my answers, so I will post the full version here:<BR/><BR/>> > 1. Who are you voting for in November and why?<BR/><BR/>I'm going to answer strictly in "conservative" terms and reach a devastatingly clear conclusion.<BR/><BR/>Let's see. Those who argue against socialism used to tend to call the GOP the lesser of evils. Um, well, okay, scratch that. <BR/><BR/>Those who like free markets, fiscal responsibility, lower deficits, small business startups, stock market booms, technological innovation and general economic growth now have a fifty year record in which all of these metrics - and many more - favor the Democrats by huge margins. Civil liberties? Well, that one's easy. Anything else?<BR/><BR/>I will grant that Republicans rank higher in a couple of categories, e.g. vastly increasing secrecy and favoring crony-monopolies (precisely the scenario that Adam Smith called the worst enemy of free markets - far more dangerous than socialism.)<BR/><BR/>Um, have we entered no-brainer territory? Certainly every supposedly "pro-business"catechism or mantra that's been used against the democrats has been proved to be about as real as Hogwarts.<BR/><BR/>So far I've couched this entirely in "conservative" terms. But what about the fixation of the neocons, upon enhancing a powerfully assertive Pax Americana? I happen to mildly agree that the unipolar, America-led world of 1999 was better than today's chaos. But there are no metrics under which the neocons have not destroyed the thing they claimed to love! Military readiness is at an all-time low (after an all-time high under Clinton) The reserves are a shambles. Recruitment standards are in the toilet. We have no allies. (Though world polls show a readiness to embrace us again, the moment Obama is President.)<BR/><BR/>Need I also mention that the GOP is taken-over by zealots who openly avow that you and I are "damned" and who pray daily for events described in the Book of Revelations to unfold? Leading to "fire in the sky" and an end to the United States of America?<BR/><BR/>And so, for not a single "liberal" reason, I am voting not only for Obama, but for the GOP to be utterly spanked and sent into exile, where, perhaps, sincere men and women may remember Barry Goldwater and resurrect some kind of healthy, libertarian Conservatism.<BR/><BR/><BR/>> > 2. Who did you vote for in 2004? Who did you vote for<BR/>> in 2000?<BR/><BR/><BR/>I could tell that the neocons were mad in 2000 and that their allies were fanatics or thieves. It was blatant in 2004. Those who act shocked (shocked!) and betrayed today were fools then and are likely fools now.<BR/><BR/><BR/>> > 3. Is this in fact the most important election in your> lifetime, as > > many observers have claimed?<BR/><BR/>Without any doubt.<BR/>But the reason that I'll give may surprise you.It is not "political"!<BR/><BR/> The most important issues at stake today have nothing to do with "left-vs-right" (and those who think so are reflex troglodytes.) No, the issue is light-vs-dark, in the sense that we have been subjected to a kleptocratic raid that depended upon one thing -- quashing every possible system of accountability. Especially the US Civil Service.<BR/><BR/>Yes, kneejerk libertarians can think of no greater band of villains than bureaucrats. They forget Adam Smith's warning that crony-monopolies and creeping aristocratism are far more dangerous to free markets. In fact, the bureaucracy was supposedly invented to help control that historically ruinous trend. YES, bureaucracies can also stifle. Some should be cut away. God save us from an over-reaction toward EU-style meddling!<BR/><BR/> But when laws and regulators and inspectors are there, enacted by sovereign law after open deliberation, then they should at least function well. And the top priority of the Bushites was to appoint 10,000 monomaniacal klepto-enablers atop every agency, with the sole aim of preventing those agencies from working.<BR/><BR/>If obama does nothing else -- passes no new laws or initiatives -- he will save us simply by expelling those 10,000 enemies of accountability and promoting from within the Civil Service. Only then can we properly argue which civil servants are useful and which aren't<BR/><BR/><BR/>> > 4. What will you miss about the Bush administration?<BR/><BR/>Their perfect purity of purpose. I have looked for a single example of their acting in the best interests of the American people, the republic, or even decent conservatism. There are no examples, whatsoever. Such perfection belies the "Standard Model" that they were merely venal morons. Such uniformity of accomplishment smacks of deliberate intelligence.<BR/><BR/><BR/>> > 5. Leaving George W. Bush out of consideration, what> former U.S. > > president would you most like to have waterboarded?<BR/><BR/>I find this question offensive. I will swallow my anger when Bush pardons thousands... and then lets Cheney pardon him. I am too busy for vengeance.<BR/><BR/> But knowing that many of your readers will cite Clinton and call him "almost as bad," let me say this. After a billion dollar, fourteen year witch hunt, that included hundreds of FBI agents re-assigned from normal duties to look for a "smoking gun," during the six months before 9/11 (an act of outright treason), the sum total of Clinton era officials to be convicted - or even indicted - for crimes having anything to do with the performance of their official duties, would up being ZERO.<BR/><BR/>You cannot perfectly prove a negative. But when a relentless search, turning over every stone, fails to come up with a single positive, then only complete monomaniacs would clutch an emotion-drenched and biliously-irrational hatred for what is now proved to have been the most honest and open administration in all of US - or human - history. Combine that with excellent metrics in every aspect of management, economics, market health, stimulating business startups, etc. ad infinitum... and the case is closed. <BR/><BR/>Hold your nose if you must. And watch them warily. But put the dems back in charge. Across the $$%#%$! board.<BR/><BR/><BR/>PS... where is the LP this year? Was there ever a time when it SHOULD have seen a surge of refugees from the GOP? The absolute and fantastic repulsiveness of their nominee only explains part of it. This election is proof, positive, that the goggle-eyed lapel-grabbing randroids have got to grow up. Americans will listen to pragmatic incrementalists. Dogmatic fanatics won't budge even 2%.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18519033124669234912008-10-20T11:30:00.000-07:002008-10-20T11:30:00.000-07:00They got it wrong. It's going to be super-intellig...They got it wrong. It's going to be super-intelligent hive-minded kittens with telekinesis, flying in massive spheres of yarn. =^-^=Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46002840671342769332008-10-20T10:12:00.000-07:002008-10-20T10:12:00.000-07:00"Prophet Yahweh, Seer of Yahweh, Master UFO Caller...<I>"Prophet Yahweh, Seer of Yahweh, Master UFO Caller says that on October 31, 2008, superhuman black men, from other planets, will appear in their <BR/>spaceships and hover over his UFO Summoning School for three days as a sign that all Americans should vote for Obama as President."</I><BR/><BR/>LOL. I think there are many on the planet who could handle purple three-eyed, toads better than superhuman black men. I for one, welcome our new overlords.<BR/><BR/>>> I would recommend Gold, over the stock market after Christmas. You will see it bounce up and down for some time -- but trying to time that stuff is scary, and the trend will be downward. I really wish I had good news -- but hey, in a few months, land will be a buying opportunity. No telling when the dollar, the economy or any of this will take a steep nose dive. Do you think they had a lot of warning, or any inkling their economy wasn't booming in Iceland?<BR/><BR/>I suppose if they've been hiding aliens, saving it for a rainy day like an economic crash sounds like a good idea; "I know you've come 300 billion miles, and have great knowledge to share with us, but do you think you could spot me a few mortgage payments?"<BR/><BR/>Welcome back by the way. You sound like you had a lot of fun. I'm wondering how much different the view of things is over there than it is over here. Is it kind of like the US is asleep, or about the same, what?Fake_William_Shatnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027049743048836086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-21406419998280612232008-10-20T09:39:00.000-07:002008-10-20T09:39:00.000-07:00Oh, I think I'll wait to dive into stocks again ti...Oh, I think I'll wait to dive into stocks again till after the Xmas sales figures come out...David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46993775342026436282008-10-20T09:37:00.000-07:002008-10-20T09:37:00.000-07:00Back from Montreal, where my French wasn't quite a...Back from Montreal, where my French wasn't quite as rusty as I thought! Oh, and Air Canada is a GREAT airline! Coach is almost as good as business class.)<BR/><BR/>More soon, but some tidbits to share:<BR/><BR/>Here are the links to tune in and watch streaming video of the Innovation 2008 conference this Monday and Tuesday:<BR/><BR/>The link for Monday is: https://umconnect.umn.edu/innovation2008m/<BR/><BR/> The link for Tuesday is: https://umconnect.umn.edu/innovation2008t/<BR/><BR/>Oh, and th humanity...<BR/><BR/>Prophet Predicts Spaceships Will Appear in Support of Obama<BR/>http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/10/prweb1395924.htm<BR/><BR/>"Prophet Yahweh, Seer of Yahweh, Master UFO Caller says that on October 31, 2008, superhuman black men, from other planets, will appear in their <BR/>spaceships and hover over his UFO Summoning School for three days as a sign that all Americans should vote for Obama as President."David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19546165384071572142008-10-20T08:55:00.000-07:002008-10-20T08:55:00.000-07:00"New research indicates that in situations in whic...<I>"New research indicates that in situations in which a person is not in control, they're more likely to spot patterns where none exist, see illusions, and believe in conspiracy theories. This is actually kind of important!"</I><BR/><BR/>Not that everything is about me... but it seems like someone is thinking about me. LOL.<BR/><BR/>I think most of us here would be in the boat with "conspiracy theorist" because we spot patterns. One mans evidence is another's conspiracy today, because we all get to have our own facts -- just buy the magazine that fits your world view!<BR/><BR/>>> And I'd also say that I'd expect a little more careful look at what I was saying in physics. Yes, my terms are jumbled, and I'm condensing about 50 pages to 5 paragraphs, but physics today, does not explain the things I'm hinting at. I could refer to a number of phenomena and say; "this is why it works this way." But I'd first want to be in a crowd that can look beyond the "parlor speak." Anyway, I actually have a few totally origional thoughts -- and current theory is very much in line with ideas I was kicking around at 14. I can look at a steamer trunk of old ideas and see a lot of products that are on the market today. This just adds to a frustration for my inability to put algorithms and "shop vocabulary" behind the ideas. If you don't say; "Broncitis" for instance, you can't charge someone a lot of money for a Doctor's visit to tell them they ave irritated lungs.<BR/><BR/>>> That's why the above quote is appropriate. Yes, I totally agree that people who feel powerless look for more patterns. I was videotaping a group of ladies who believe in seeing Angels and Fairies. Not that I'm going to say that we can rule anything out... to someone who has never seen or heard a cell phone, or a radio, the air waves only cary sound, but if you have the right device, and someone calls you number -- you are all of a sudden aware of another reality.<BR/><BR/>But most of these ladies have a story about a domineering husband they'd like to please and are well-to-do. Idle.<BR/><BR/>I'll just say; "not in my experience..." and let it got. There are plenty of folks who believe in UFOs, and while I think there is 99.9995% chance that we will one day meet an advanced race -- the blurred photos so far mean that nobody has met them with the ability to take a photo. While there are a lot of releases from official channels these days, documenting UFO sightings by the military and such,... I suspect that a lot of people NEED the idea of some advanced fathter figure, Santa Claus, or Jesus to bail them out. Well, we don't have a tenth of the suffering as people in Darfur -- and WE could be bailing them out but we sit on our duffs -- why do we think we are special or more deserving? <BR/><BR/>>> The other side of the coin, however, from being powerless and seeing patterns is to be VESTED in the status quo, and see what you KNOW TO BE TRUE. You may be a stock broker, and the idea that your great financial leaders are steering the company into a Greater Depression, and are doing it with all the championed ideas of "free market" goes against the concepts that helped pay for your kids getting through college.<BR/><BR/>In some regards, I'm successful, but I never feel like I've accomplished enough -- so I'm not very Vested in what I'm doing. If I'm doing art -- I want to do science, and vise-versa. I suppose I stand on both sides of the fence. <BR/><BR/>The pattern I'd like people to see now, is that ships are sitting in port around China are idle and empty, and the ones coming to the USA are about half full. So that we are not out of the woods. Maybe one or two more months. It is really hard to predict the short term, but the long term looks inevitable --- but I'm still trying to hope for the best. It just looks like our CorpGov and Wall Street regulators (thieves), are repeating the mistakes of the first Great Depression either through ignorance or malice. I just don't think Paulson can make $900 Million and be an idiot -- I just don't believe in the Forest Gump phenomenon -- so that's a pattern I DON'T SEE. <A HREF="http://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-N-28-is-available!-Global-systemic-crisis-Alert-Summer-2009-The-US-government-defaults-on-its-debt_a2250.html" REL="nofollow"> LINK </A>.<BR/><BR/>The say that;<BR/><I>• The recent upward trend of the US Dollar is a direct and temporary consequence of the collapse of stock markets <BR/><BR/>• Thanks to its recent « political baptism », the Euro becomes a credible « safe haven » value and therefore provides a « crisis » alternative to the US dollar <BR/><BR/>• The US public debt is now swelling uncontrollably <BR/><BR/>• The ongoing collapse of US real economy prevents from finding an alternative solution to the country's defaulting <BR/><BR/>• « Strong inflation or hyper-inflation in the US in 2009? », that is the only question. </I><BR/><BR/>>> I really want to have good news, but I think it's important that I get the word out. So at least some of the Have-nots don't get blindsided. Note that they CORRECTLY report our inflation rate at about 14% right now -- instead of that farce that Washington puts it at. But hey, this is only one publication. It also seems to have more than one doom and gloom prediction in its past.<BR/><BR/>In my experience, however, the Main Stream Media in the US only puts up bad news when even your dog knows it.Fake_William_Shatnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027049743048836086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-48132181513360614712008-10-20T08:54:00.000-07:002008-10-20T08:54:00.000-07:00@David (not Brin)They aren't looking for governmen...@David (not Brin)<BR/><BR/>They aren't looking for government action on the issue of assistance. Their expectation is that their vibrant (to them) Christian communities will provide that assistance, that the government provides that care poorly and with too much fraud, waste, and abuse, and that small communities are better able to provide care for the whole person than large bureaucratic governments.<BR/><BR/>Much of that has been refuted, but the lingering belief explains the inconsistency.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618647194288598056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-85122586334762967642008-10-19T22:23:00.000-07:002008-10-19T22:23:00.000-07:00I think Mr. Brin, that you probably have some good...I think Mr. Brin, that you probably have some good ideas.<BR/>I apologize for the last minute nature of my suggestion for you to visit: http://www.project10tothe100.com/how_it_works.html<BR/>as the last day for submissions is 10/20/08.thinkaholhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02649475904990456289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25333665571541323652008-10-19T17:47:00.000-07:002008-10-19T17:47:00.000-07:00"New research indicates that in situations in whic..."New research indicates that in situations in which a person is not in control, they're more likely to spot patterns where none exist, see illusions, and believe in conspiracy theories. This is actually kind of important!"<BR/><BR/>Yes it is, and Bronislaw Malinowski thought so too when he noticed this sometime around WWI during his research in the Trobriand Islands.<BR/><BR/>The way he put it was, magical beliefs (and beliefs about "luck") abound about things we have no control over.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09817336104344458360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-12131795736092800402008-10-19T16:21:00.000-07:002008-10-19T16:21:00.000-07:00While I admit that there appear to be religious in...While I admit that there appear to be religious individuals that are "pro-life" and reach out towards single moms and pregnant teens, it is my observation that many of these same individuals are inconsistent with respect to government action on this issue.<BR/><BR/>While they advocate abortion bans and litmus tests on judicial appointments, they oppose measures that reduce unwanted pregnancies (sex education that includes birth control, distribution of birth control) and welfare programs that assist single mothers.David Smelserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08596446730839038592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13226727099797360622008-10-18T22:18:00.000-07:002008-10-18T22:18:00.000-07:00@arcanedesignsThe ancient practice of abortion was...@arcanedesigns<BR/><BR/>The ancient practice of abortion was measured by the standard at #3 in my rubric, if Roe v. Wade is to be believed. Fundamentalists haven't got a historical justification for their position, rather, they have what turns out to be a modern-era interpretation of the surface meanings of some words in those ancient documents, combined with what is, in my opinion, an appallingly limiting secular philosophy. <BR/><BR/>I'd be careful to condemn them altogether; I'm sure I have my own myopias. One Fundamentalist I know is fond of telling Mormons just how very much they need to get out more, when he hears comments alleging that his people don't try to be the best kind of people. <BR/><BR/>Measure it this way: If that putatively "pro-life" church has a ministry which reaches out to single moms and pregnant teens, and if it effective in the main, then it's unfair to say that it has a "ban now pay later" approach.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618647194288598056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81329549839183027252008-10-18T00:13:00.000-07:002008-10-18T00:13:00.000-07:00One of my friends from college is a fundamentalist...One of my friends from college is a fundamentalist Christian who had an interesting stance on abortion. Naturally he was against it, but when I pressed him on it, he recognized that there needed to be much more support for the mothers and the children if abortions were banned. <BR/><BR/>I don't remember the possibilities he mentioned, but I'm sure an improved adoption system was a part of it. Probably a lot of financial support for the mother-to-be, and other things as well. Essentially, everything that could be done to alleviate the pain of taking choice away ought to be done. Ethically it's a better position than just wanting to ban abortion, and I'm glad to see the effort to find/create a center ground, but I'm still pro-choice even with that option.<BR/><BR/>I find it interesting because, even with a softened position on abortion, the emphasis is on banning abortion now. And then, later, when they get around to it, maybe they'll put out the effort (<I>and the money</I>) to support the responsible ameliorations. It kind of reminds me of our credit problems, actually...<BR/><BR/>"Let's be responsible, save up, and make our big purchase when we can afford it."<BR/>Vs.<BR/>"Let's just buy it now, and pay for it... never."<BR/><BR/>Personally, I think everyone could recognize that the practice of abortion is not something that can be stopped. It was done more than 3000 years ago when it was far from safe and it will continue to happen when people feel trapped by a pregnancy. I believe the best we can do is minimize the need for it, ensure the safety of it, and enhance the alternatives to it - but there could never be a perfected system that would forever eliminate the need for it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-43292481992549616312008-10-18T00:04:00.000-07:002008-10-18T00:04:00.000-07:00It's late, so I forgot to add the thing that's mis...It's late, so I forgot to add the thing that's missing. The excerpt was a distillation of part of "Section 76" of "The Doctrine and Covenants", which is a collection of organizational and doctrinal pronouncements made during the founding years of the LDS Church. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Sections 137 and 138 of that book widen the concept further, and point out that the ignorant and innocent are consigned to no such "second-best heaven". <BR/><BR/>The best conclusion I have been able to make is that this eschatological sorting-out will basically be according to what each person actually wants, as witnessed by the things he or she did with his life, and that those who had no opportunity for a say in the matter would be fully informed, before deciding further.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618647194288598056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11977010850015069232008-10-17T23:59:00.000-07:002008-10-17T23:59:00.000-07:00@tintinausYour concern would be valid if it were a...@tintinaus<BR/><BR/>Your concern would be valid if it were actually a problem in Mormon eschatology. The difficulty with Sociotard's excerpt is its audience: people who have accepted baptism into the Church and intend to live all of its tenets. <BR/><BR/>Yeah, sure, the language is very general, but so are the categorizations. It's easy to say, "OK, here are some broad categories," but quite another thing to say, "OK, here is were *YOU* will end up, ya sinner."<BR/><BR/>We Mormons have been strenuously taught to avoid the latter judgment. It doesn't always take in every Mormon's heart, but then again, what religious tenet ever does for any large group of federated believers?Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618647194288598056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70814353579910016852008-10-17T23:28:00.000-07:002008-10-17T23:28:00.000-07:00The only thing that concerned me about the stuff p...The only thing that concerned me about the stuff printed from the LDS website was that it looks as if it necessary to be married to get to the best part of heaven.<BR/><BR/><I>To live in the highest part of the celestial kingdom is called exaltation* or eternal life. To be able to live in this part of the celestial kingdom, people must have been married in the temple and must have kept the sacred promises they made in the temple.</I><BR/><BR/>I pity the unwed and children who die and can only go to the second best heaven(Reminds me of why it used to be important to have children baptised in the Catholic church).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-29486970337222907172008-10-17T20:26:00.000-07:002008-10-17T20:26:00.000-07:00wow. brin here, checking in from Montreal. no ti...wow. brin here, checking in from Montreal. no time except to say the Mormon eschatology was fascinating!<BR/><BR/>I included "excluded from God's presence" because the angry-fundies try to weasel out of relishing the prospect of Revelations style damnation for all who aren't "them."<BR/><BR/>1) by claiming they "pray for us" while believing the scenario in Revelations cannot be averted.<BR/><BR/>2) by claiming that Hell is not fire and boiling lead, but permanent writhing loneliness because you chose not to come near God. (And unlike Mormons, there's no "Now I get it!" take-backs after death.)<BR/><BR/>That's plain despicable hypocricy. Especially since it insists NOT only that the Lord is a vengeful lunatic who would do ANY of the psychotic shit in Revelations...<BR/><BR/>...but also that he cannot change his mind. But go read one of the best books of the Bible -- Jonah. Just read it, and see if He is unwilling to change his mind... the way He did when He started letting us begin our True Apprenticeship as Junior co-creators, with science.<BR/><BR/>Oh, He also said NEVER to human sacrifice. But that's another story.<BR/><BR/>gotta go. GREAT conversation. keep it going.<BR/><BR/>dbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com