Gay scientists isolate 'Christian Gene'
-
Actually, I think you need to get some sleep, dude.
Ilíon wrote:
I understood, from the start, that this where you must end up. ?
Than all you had to do is ask. My personnal view of the universe is that it is kind of a game. Our goal is to seek the truth. Once someone actually discovers the truth, the game is over. The winner gets to be God in the next round. Knowing that probably means I'm the winner this round.
Ilíon wrote:
In the context of "question" or "discovery," what is "solving?" It is, of course, "getting truth."
I'm not sure I agree with that. I always have more fun trying to solve a problem than I do having the solution. My motivation is the fun of being mentally engaged. Once I have the solution, I'll probably just go watch Oprah or something. Thats probably why I enjoy arguing with all the rest of you morons so much. ;)
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Actually, I think you need to get some sleep, dude.
[goes to look at self in the mirror; returns and re-reads what was written] Well, dude, that's certainly an opinion. However, that opinion/statement doesn't appear to correspond to reality.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Than all you had to do is ask.
I *did* ask. That's how we made our journey of discovery (and we actually discovered something). Stan, unlike most of the regulars here, you don't throw a snit-fit when your beliefs/opinions and statements are questioned -- you apparently are willing to *think* about your beliefs. By drawing you out, the odds are greater that you will continue to think about what you've said -- for, after all, *you* said it. That is, the odds are greater that you will be dissatisfied with your beliefs as you currently hold them, so you will eventually seek to refine them.
Stan Shannon wrote:
My personnal view of the universe is that it is kind of a game. Our goal is to seek the truth. Once someone actually discovers the truth, the game is over. The winner gets to be God in the next round. Knowing that probably means I'm the winner this round.
And yet, the world still exists.
Ilíon wrote:
Ilíon: What good or use is "discovery" it it never gives us truth? . Stan: Because it gives us something interesting to do. Have you ever solved a Rubics cube? The fun part is the solving - not the little cube with the sides all the same color. . Ilíon: In the context of "question" or "discovery," what is "solving?" . It is, of course, "getting truth."
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with that. I always have more fun trying to solve a problem than I do having the solution. My motivation is the fun of being mentally engaged. Once I have the solution, I'll probably just go watch Oprah or something.
I didn't ask "For what phychological reason(s)/cause(s) does one engage in "discovery?""
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats probably why I enjoy arguing with all the rest of you morons so much. ;)
Speak for the kiddies.
-
Oh my God you are an idiot. I give up, I can't talk to you. Learn the concept of 'degrees of certainty' and I'll reconsider. We know nothing completely, we know lots of things to a degree of certainty determined by experimentation. I couldn't give a rats ass what you think of science, it's not like you are in a position of any influence. I was interested in having a rational debate, but since you speak as if you have had a severe head wound and are trying to prove that you still have brain function, it's taken this long to determine that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I'm done. Feel free to post some incoherent insulting response, I know you have to have the last word.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
I was interested in having a rational debate, but since you speak as if you have had a severe head wound and are trying to prove that you still have brain function, it's taken this long to determine that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
You're too, too entertaining.
-
Ilíon wrote:
Certainly, the secularists don't care about "gay rights" (whatever that vacuuous phrase means at any particular usage of it), except as one tool in their attempts to demolish traditional society.
I wonder what you think motivates this desire to "demolish traditional society". If not a concern for gay rights and other standard items on the liberal agenda, what then?
Ilíon wrote:
More importantly, secularists do not respect "gays" as persons. Just look at how quickly they *always* play the "faggot card" when opposed by someone who may be (or whom they think they can portray as being) "gay" or as in some way associated with "gays."
Name me one out of the closet gay person of whom that has been true.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Name me one out of the closet gay person of whom that has been true.
Not only can you not be bothered to think, you can't even be bothered to *read* what you pretend to critique. ... even as you exhibit the very sort of thinking (and behaviors) I was talking about: What business of yours is it that some "gay" person is not "out of the closet?" Where do you (collective) get off "outing" someone as the penalty for opposing you, when the person's sexual preference has nothing to do with the point at issue?
modified on Sunday, December 23, 2007 7:29:38 PM
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Actually, I think you need to get some sleep, dude.
[goes to look at self in the mirror; returns and re-reads what was written] Well, dude, that's certainly an opinion. However, that opinion/statement doesn't appear to correspond to reality.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Than all you had to do is ask.
I *did* ask. That's how we made our journey of discovery (and we actually discovered something). Stan, unlike most of the regulars here, you don't throw a snit-fit when your beliefs/opinions and statements are questioned -- you apparently are willing to *think* about your beliefs. By drawing you out, the odds are greater that you will continue to think about what you've said -- for, after all, *you* said it. That is, the odds are greater that you will be dissatisfied with your beliefs as you currently hold them, so you will eventually seek to refine them.
Stan Shannon wrote:
My personnal view of the universe is that it is kind of a game. Our goal is to seek the truth. Once someone actually discovers the truth, the game is over. The winner gets to be God in the next round. Knowing that probably means I'm the winner this round.
And yet, the world still exists.
Ilíon wrote:
Ilíon: What good or use is "discovery" it it never gives us truth? . Stan: Because it gives us something interesting to do. Have you ever solved a Rubics cube? The fun part is the solving - not the little cube with the sides all the same color. . Ilíon: In the context of "question" or "discovery," what is "solving?" . It is, of course, "getting truth."
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with that. I always have more fun trying to solve a problem than I do having the solution. My motivation is the fun of being mentally engaged. Once I have the solution, I'll probably just go watch Oprah or something.
I didn't ask "For what phychological reason(s)/cause(s) does one engage in "discovery?""
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats probably why I enjoy arguing with all the rest of you morons so much. ;)
Speak for the kiddies.
Well, fine. All I can say is that I disagree with your 'getting truth' assertion. Science is not about trying to discover truth. It is about trying to determine a specific answer to a specific question. Even if it accurately answers the question it still might not represent the truth. Did Newton provide truth? No. Did Einstien provide truth? No, or at least probably not and certainly not a complete truth. Yet both of them provided specific and useful answers to specific questions. Answers that could be tested and varified by others. But just becuase they can be tested and verified does not mean that they are the truth. Einstien, in his turn, will undoubtedly be overthrown by someone somewhere. A new answer will emerge, but it will not yet be the truth. Each one of these answers allows us more power and control over our physical environment. So, it doesn't really matter if,at the end of the day, we ever find the truth. So long as our knowledge continues improving that might be as good as it gets.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
-
There simply no way that you can deny that the power of oppression is more centralized now than it once was in American society. When the federal court system, for example, declared locally defined sodomy codes unconstitutional that was a use of centralized authority being used to destroy decentralized authority. How else could you possibly define it? Even if you believe that sodomy is some kind of liberty, you cannot deny that the decision came from a centralized authority which had not previously existed. How is merely observing that obvious fact paranoia? You want to describe it as paranoia simply because you wish to continue the farce that currently exist within American politics. We are trading our Jefferonian liberty of local government rule for libertarian liberties of personnel hedonism. And people such as yourself are relentless defining any attempt to criticize that as some kind of paranoid, demented religious tyranny of some kind. It isn't. You are trying to help destroy Jeffersonian society. That is a simple fact. And you are doing it quite purposefully fully knowledgeable that everything I am saying is true.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There simply no way that you can deny that ...
Certainly he can. That sort do it all the time. Now, if you'd said something like "There is no way you can *honestly* deny that ..." (which, I do realize is what you meant) ... The point I'm trying to make is that words matter, phrasing matters. Just think about Clinton: he did his "best" lying when he could speak literal truth that his listeners would understand differently from what he'd actually said.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I was interested in having a rational debate, but since you speak as if you have had a severe head wound and are trying to prove that you still have brain function, it's taken this long to determine that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
You're too, too entertaining.
Actually, Ilíon you're probably the greatest source of amusement here. It's like watching an babbling infant, albeit one that's capable of using big words (bombast: language that is full of long or pretentious words, used to impress others), but still has no underlying intelligence.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Actually, I think you need to get some sleep, dude.
[goes to look at self in the mirror; returns and re-reads what was written] Well, dude, that's certainly an opinion. However, that opinion/statement doesn't appear to correspond to reality.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Than all you had to do is ask.
I *did* ask. That's how we made our journey of discovery (and we actually discovered something). Stan, unlike most of the regulars here, you don't throw a snit-fit when your beliefs/opinions and statements are questioned -- you apparently are willing to *think* about your beliefs. By drawing you out, the odds are greater that you will continue to think about what you've said -- for, after all, *you* said it. That is, the odds are greater that you will be dissatisfied with your beliefs as you currently hold them, so you will eventually seek to refine them.
Stan Shannon wrote:
My personnal view of the universe is that it is kind of a game. Our goal is to seek the truth. Once someone actually discovers the truth, the game is over. The winner gets to be God in the next round. Knowing that probably means I'm the winner this round.
And yet, the world still exists.
Ilíon wrote:
Ilíon: What good or use is "discovery" it it never gives us truth? . Stan: Because it gives us something interesting to do. Have you ever solved a Rubics cube? The fun part is the solving - not the little cube with the sides all the same color. . Ilíon: In the context of "question" or "discovery," what is "solving?" . It is, of course, "getting truth."
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with that. I always have more fun trying to solve a problem than I do having the solution. My motivation is the fun of being mentally engaged. Once I have the solution, I'll probably just go watch Oprah or something.
I didn't ask "For what phychological reason(s)/cause(s) does one engage in "discovery?""
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats probably why I enjoy arguing with all the rest of you morons so much. ;)
Speak for the kiddies.
Ilíon wrote:
[goes to look at self in the mirror; returns and re-reads what was written]
You probably keep a mirror handy at all times, and stare at it all the time.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Well, fine. All I can say is that I disagree with your 'getting truth' assertion. Science is not about trying to discover truth. It is about trying to determine a specific answer to a specific question. Even if it accurately answers the question it still might not represent the truth. Did Newton provide truth? No. Did Einstien provide truth? No, or at least probably not and certainly not a complete truth. Yet both of them provided specific and useful answers to specific questions. Answers that could be tested and varified by others. But just becuase they can be tested and verified does not mean that they are the truth. Einstien, in his turn, will undoubtedly be overthrown by someone somewhere. A new answer will emerge, but it will not yet be the truth. Each one of these answers allows us more power and control over our physical environment. So, it doesn't really matter if,at the end of the day, we ever find the truth. So long as our knowledge continues improving that might be as good as it gets.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, fine. All I can say is that I disagree with your 'getting truth' assertion.
I think you've lost track of the discussion, both of the over-all trajectory of it and of what specific points have been raised. And by whom. Oh, do you mean this assertion:
Stan: Knowing truth would mean the end of human discovery. No more question, no more exploration. Having questions is a good thing for a human mind. Having truth is rather meaningless. . Ilíon: What good or use is "discovery" it it never gives us truth? . Stan: Because it gives us something interesting to do. Have you ever solved a Rubics cube? The fun part is the solving - not the little cube with the sides all the same color. [i.e. the fun part is the process one employs in making "discovery," rather than the result that one discovers] . Ilíon: In the context of "question" or "discovery," what is "solving?" It is, of course, "getting truth."
That's simply the truth, that you disagree doesn't change reality: one hasn't solved a question until one has the true answer to the question. One may be *satisfied* with a false answer to the question, but that's a different matter.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Science is not about trying to discover truth. It is about trying to determine a specific answer to a specific question. Even if it accurately answers the question it still might not represent the truth.
You're both (seemingly) misunderstanding what I've said [Though, one wonders how you can possibly be doing that, since my statement that "Science is not about truth." is what has the kiddies in an uproar. Today. It will be something different on another day.] AND speaking literal nonsense: "Even if it accurately answers the question it still might not represent the truth."
Stan Shannon wrote:
Did Newton provide truth? No. Did Einstien provide truth? No, or at least probably not and certainly not a complete truth.
There is no such thing as a "partial truth;" there is truth and not-truth. There are complex statements, of which the simple component statements are individually true or not-true; and thus, a complex statement is false if even one of its component statements is false. Come on now, you employ this logic on a daily basis; you couldn't progra
-
John Carson wrote:
Name me one out of the closet gay person of whom that has been true.
Not only can you not be bothered to think, you can't even be bothered to *read* what you pretend to critique. ... even as you exhibit the very sort of thinking (and behaviors) I was talking about: What business of yours is it that some "gay" person is not "out of the closet?" Where do you (collective) get off "outing" someone as the penalty for opposing you, when the person's sexual preference has nothing to do with the point at issue?
modified on Sunday, December 23, 2007 7:29:38 PM
Ilíon wrote:
Not only can you not be bothered to think, you can't even be bothered to *read* what you pretend to critique.
You are an arrogant jerk with very little to contribute beside an obnoxious attitude.
Ilíon wrote:
... even as you exhibit the very sort of thinking (and behaviors) I was talking about: What business of yours is it that some "gay" person is not "out of the closet?" Where do you (collective) get off "outing" someone as the penalty for opposing you, when the person's sexual preference has nothing to do with the point at issue?
As anyone who follows these matters should be aware, the notorious cases of criticism of gay people from the left have arisen in a context of avowed heterosexuals who actively oppose gay rights --- Ted Haggard and Larry Craig, for example. These people are liars and hypocrites. Surely someone as sanctimonious as yourself can appreciate the desire to expose them as such. (There are some gay people who make a campaign of outing anyone since they consider everyone in the closet to be a hypocrite, but it would be hard to claim that these gay people don't care about gay rights.) My last post was motivated by a desire to disinguish between two hypotheses. Ilion's Hypothesis. The left is hostile or, at best, indifferent to gays. John's Hypothesis. The left is sympathetic to gays in general but hostile to hypocrites who pose as heterosexuals and oppose gay rights while themselves engaging in gay sex. If you could come up with an out-of-the-closet gay person who has been targeted by the left over their sexuality, then that would be evidence in favour of your hypothesis and against mine. There are, after all, a lot of gays who are out of the closet. Surely if the left has no sincere regard for gay rights, there should be examples of it attacking these people over their sexuality when it suited them.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, fine. All I can say is that I disagree with your 'getting truth' assertion.
I think you've lost track of the discussion, both of the over-all trajectory of it and of what specific points have been raised. And by whom. Oh, do you mean this assertion:
Stan: Knowing truth would mean the end of human discovery. No more question, no more exploration. Having questions is a good thing for a human mind. Having truth is rather meaningless. . Ilíon: What good or use is "discovery" it it never gives us truth? . Stan: Because it gives us something interesting to do. Have you ever solved a Rubics cube? The fun part is the solving - not the little cube with the sides all the same color. [i.e. the fun part is the process one employs in making "discovery," rather than the result that one discovers] . Ilíon: In the context of "question" or "discovery," what is "solving?" It is, of course, "getting truth."
That's simply the truth, that you disagree doesn't change reality: one hasn't solved a question until one has the true answer to the question. One may be *satisfied* with a false answer to the question, but that's a different matter.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Science is not about trying to discover truth. It is about trying to determine a specific answer to a specific question. Even if it accurately answers the question it still might not represent the truth.
You're both (seemingly) misunderstanding what I've said [Though, one wonders how you can possibly be doing that, since my statement that "Science is not about truth." is what has the kiddies in an uproar. Today. It will be something different on another day.] AND speaking literal nonsense: "Even if it accurately answers the question it still might not represent the truth."
Stan Shannon wrote:
Did Newton provide truth? No. Did Einstien provide truth? No, or at least probably not and certainly not a complete truth.
There is no such thing as a "partial truth;" there is truth and not-truth. There are complex statements, of which the simple component statements are individually true or not-true; and thus, a complex statement is false if even one of its component statements is false. Come on now, you employ this logic on a daily basis; you couldn't progra
Ilíon wrote:
one hasn't solved a question until one has the true answer to the question. One may be *satisfied* with a false answer to the question, but that's a different matter.
I disagree with that. A false answer can still be the correct answer for a false question. It simply means the question was not properly constructed, and typically that means thay insufficient information had been acquired to properly frame the question in the first place. Knowledge is gained in any case, even if truth isn't.
Ilíon wrote:
There is no such thing as a "partial truth;" there is truth and not-truth.
Nonsense. Ensteins answer is incomplete because it answers certain questions, but not others. And those that it does answer, may or may not be the correct question. We will not know until more information is available.
Ilíon wrote:
What does "verify" mean? Or for that matter, "falsify?"
They merely indicate whether the same answer can be derived for the same question. It doesn't indicate a final answer, but merely that the methods used to answer the question reliably reproduce the same answer.
Ilíon wrote:
How can one truthfully say one has "knowledge" is one does not know truth? One cannot.
Why not? I claim that knowledge is independent of truth. We can put men on the moon with the knowledge that Newton provided, yet it was still not the truth.
Ilíon wrote:
Now you're getting at what science *is* about; it's about the practical extension of our control over nature, regardless of whether we truly understand *why* it is that we are able to do today that we couldn't do yesterday.
And I claim that is precisely the point I made quite some time ago.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
-
Actually, Ilíon you're probably the greatest source of amusement here. It's like watching an babbling infant, albeit one that's capable of using big words (bombast: language that is full of long or pretentious words, used to impress others), but still has no underlying intelligence.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
That's got to be the best description of him I've heard so far. I'd say you nailed it.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
There simply no way that you can deny that the power of oppression is more centralized now than it once was in American society. When the federal court system, for example, declared locally defined sodomy codes unconstitutional that was a use of centralized authority being used to destroy decentralized authority. How else could you possibly define it? Even if you believe that sodomy is some kind of liberty, you cannot deny that the decision came from a centralized authority which had not previously existed. How is merely observing that obvious fact paranoia? You want to describe it as paranoia simply because you wish to continue the farce that currently exist within American politics. We are trading our Jefferonian liberty of local government rule for libertarian liberties of personnel hedonism. And people such as yourself are relentless defining any attempt to criticize that as some kind of paranoid, demented religious tyranny of some kind. It isn't. You are trying to help destroy Jeffersonian society. That is a simple fact. And you are doing it quite purposefully fully knowledgeable that everything I am saying is true.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
When the federal court system, for example, declared locally defined sodomy codes unconstitutional that was a use of centralized authority being used to destroy decentralized authority. How else could you possibly define it? Even if you believe that sodomy is some kind of liberty, you cannot deny that the decision came from a centralized authority which had not previously existed.
I do see "sodomy" as some kind of liberty and I don't deny that its legalisation was centrally imposed.
Stan Shannon wrote:
How is merely observing that obvious fact paranoia?
You didn't merely observe that obvious fact. You gave a specific interpretation of the motivation. I believe that the motivation had to do with promoting a liberty for gay people. You claim, by contrast, that "Forcing a change in public attitudes and legal definitions towards sodomy, for example, would merely be a demonstration of power, not a goal in and of itself." I find this interpretation ludicrous. The petitioners in the case were two gay men who had been convicted of a sexual offence after police entered their apartment and observed them engaging in anal sex. It is surely not a surprise that the convicted men were opposed to the law that made this conviction possible, and it is surely obvious that many in the community genuinely sympathise with them on this point --- about half the people in the United States do not think gay sex should be criminalised according to opinion polls. Thus, there are emminently plausible motivations for both the petitioners and their supporters that focus centrally on the issue of gay rights. When there is available a motive that is both obvious and plausible, it is a bad practice to embrace explanations that are less obvious and less plausible. You then go off the planet with a fantastic conspiracy theory. As with all conspiracy theories, the questions to be asked are: 1. Who are the conspirators? 2. What is their motivation? Why do they want to achieve the goals you claim they seek? 3. If the conspiracy involves a small number and requires the cooperation of many, how will this cooperation be achieved at each stage of the operation. 4. Is there an alternative, more plausible, explanation for the facts that the conspiracy theory seeks to explain. As with almost all conspiracy theories, the absence of plausible answers for the first three questions and an affirmative answer to
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
When the federal court system, for example, declared locally defined sodomy codes unconstitutional that was a use of centralized authority being used to destroy decentralized authority. How else could you possibly define it? Even if you believe that sodomy is some kind of liberty, you cannot deny that the decision came from a centralized authority which had not previously existed.
I do see "sodomy" as some kind of liberty and I don't deny that its legalisation was centrally imposed.
Stan Shannon wrote:
How is merely observing that obvious fact paranoia?
You didn't merely observe that obvious fact. You gave a specific interpretation of the motivation. I believe that the motivation had to do with promoting a liberty for gay people. You claim, by contrast, that "Forcing a change in public attitudes and legal definitions towards sodomy, for example, would merely be a demonstration of power, not a goal in and of itself." I find this interpretation ludicrous. The petitioners in the case were two gay men who had been convicted of a sexual offence after police entered their apartment and observed them engaging in anal sex. It is surely not a surprise that the convicted men were opposed to the law that made this conviction possible, and it is surely obvious that many in the community genuinely sympathise with them on this point --- about half the people in the United States do not think gay sex should be criminalised according to opinion polls. Thus, there are emminently plausible motivations for both the petitioners and their supporters that focus centrally on the issue of gay rights. When there is available a motive that is both obvious and plausible, it is a bad practice to embrace explanations that are less obvious and less plausible. You then go off the planet with a fantastic conspiracy theory. As with all conspiracy theories, the questions to be asked are: 1. Who are the conspirators? 2. What is their motivation? Why do they want to achieve the goals you claim they seek? 3. If the conspiracy involves a small number and requires the cooperation of many, how will this cooperation be achieved at each stage of the operation. 4. Is there an alternative, more plausible, explanation for the facts that the conspiracy theory seeks to explain. As with almost all conspiracy theories, the absence of plausible answers for the first three questions and an affirmative answer to
John Carson wrote:
It is surely not a surprise that the convicted men were opposed to the law that made this conviction possible, and it is surely obvious that many in the community genuinely sympathise with them on this point --- about half the people in the United States do not think gay sex should be criminalised according to opinion polls. Thus, there are emminently plausible motivations for both the petitioners and their supporters that focus centrally on the issue of gay rights. When there is available a motive that is both obvious and plausible, it is a bad practice to embrace explanations that are less obvious and less plausible.
THe only thing that is obvious is that once there was a sodomy law and now there isn't. How did that law get there? Well, it got there because the elected representatives of that community established it as a local ordinace (or perhaps at a state level). They were free to do that because that is precisely how this country has always worked. Free people, expressing their beliefs with speech, press, etc, creating local laws by which their communities are managed. In other words, precisely the way the nation was designed to work. If, as you say, a majority of people in that community felt that law needed to change, they could have easily changed it well within the parameters of Jeffersonian principles. There was absolutely no need for the Supreme court to get involved at all. Court cases are not chosen by accident. Cases that ultimately make it to the supreme court do so after a careful and convoluted process of selection and denial. The ones that do make it are considered land mark cases that have the potential to radically redefine our culture. The court did not take this case becasue it cared about gay sex. It took it because it allowed them to redefine a very basic and fundamental Jeffersonian relationship between the state and the people in one very important area. That is, where we the people once had complete freedom to define the sexual mores that were considered appropriate in our community, we now do not. No amount of free press, or free speech or freedom of anything is going to change that. I now have the 'right' to stick my penis in another man's ass, but I do not have the right to stand in a public forum and freely speak my opinion on that subject in anyway that has any political significance. That has been taken away from me by a centralized political entity. They now have the power t
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
Truer words were never spoken.
And you can't even see what you've just done.
Patrick Sears wrote:
I suspect his reply would be something along the lines of "You don't see how stupid you are", however.
You think this only because you, yourself, are so described. My response to Stan will be that he isn't thinking deeply enough about what he's saying. That is quite a different thing from calling someone stupid. You people are simply amazing! You (singular and collective) want to call me stupid -- the only proof needed being that I disagree with your silly ideas. And then you want to bitch if I return the favor (though, with evidence). Is that what you're bitching about? That I don't merely *call* you stupid, but rather help you demonstrate it?
Patrick Sears wrote:
Blah. What a waste of space.
Is that like being a "waste of protoplasm?"
modified on Sunday, December 23, 2007 1:56:16 AM
Ilíon wrote:
And you can't even see what you've just done... You think this only because you, yourself, are so described.
"Blah blah blah I'm so smart you're all so stupid can't you all see how you're stupid?" except you never even bother to make an argument. All you do is stomp around the forums telling everyone how stupid they are. You're the kind of pseudo-intellectual that lives in their mother's basement too afraid to actually face the world to even go up the stairs, all the while sitting on the computer railing against the world and how stupid it is without even a lick of life experience to tell you so. Waste someone else's time, troll.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
John Carson wrote:
It is surely not a surprise that the convicted men were opposed to the law that made this conviction possible, and it is surely obvious that many in the community genuinely sympathise with them on this point --- about half the people in the United States do not think gay sex should be criminalised according to opinion polls. Thus, there are emminently plausible motivations for both the petitioners and their supporters that focus centrally on the issue of gay rights. When there is available a motive that is both obvious and plausible, it is a bad practice to embrace explanations that are less obvious and less plausible.
THe only thing that is obvious is that once there was a sodomy law and now there isn't. How did that law get there? Well, it got there because the elected representatives of that community established it as a local ordinace (or perhaps at a state level). They were free to do that because that is precisely how this country has always worked. Free people, expressing their beliefs with speech, press, etc, creating local laws by which their communities are managed. In other words, precisely the way the nation was designed to work. If, as you say, a majority of people in that community felt that law needed to change, they could have easily changed it well within the parameters of Jeffersonian principles. There was absolutely no need for the Supreme court to get involved at all. Court cases are not chosen by accident. Cases that ultimately make it to the supreme court do so after a careful and convoluted process of selection and denial. The ones that do make it are considered land mark cases that have the potential to radically redefine our culture. The court did not take this case becasue it cared about gay sex. It took it because it allowed them to redefine a very basic and fundamental Jeffersonian relationship between the state and the people in one very important area. That is, where we the people once had complete freedom to define the sexual mores that were considered appropriate in our community, we now do not. No amount of free press, or free speech or freedom of anything is going to change that. I now have the 'right' to stick my penis in another man's ass, but I do not have the right to stand in a public forum and freely speak my opinion on that subject in anyway that has any political significance. That has been taken away from me by a centralized political entity. They now have the power t
[we resume after the Christmas break, celebrating the birth or our Lord]
Stan Shannon wrote:
Court cases are not chosen by accident. Cases that ultimately make it to the supreme court do so after a careful and convoluted process of selection and denial. The ones that do make it are considered land mark cases that have the potential to radically redefine our culture. The court did not take this case becasue it cared about gay sex. It took it because it allowed them to redefine a very basic and fundamental Jeffersonian relationship between the state and the people in one very important area. That is, where we the people once had complete freedom to define the sexual mores that were considered appropriate in our community, we now do not. No amount of free press, or free speech or freedom of anything is going to change that.
I believe that the court did take the case because it cared about gay sex. Courts are about two things: interpreting the intent of the law and dispensing justice. By design, the law gives judges discretion in some areas to exercise their own sense of justice. For example, criminal statutes typically provide for a wide range of penalties and the judges must decide what penalty is appropriate in all the circumstances. Thus deciding on a "fair" outcome is part of the daily job of a judge and the pursuit of a just outcome is fundamental to a judge's mindset. Inevitably, there will be tensions between the role of interpreting the law and the role of dispensing justice. Judges will have cases come before them based on a law that they consider to be unjust and they will believe that they will be acting unjustly if they follow that law. In such circumstances, two options are available. In the first, a judge may determine that an outcome is unjust in his/her eyes, but that his/her hands are tied. "The remedy must lie with the legislature" is a frequently used phrase. The other option is to work very hard to produce an interpretation of existing law (including Constitutional law) that allows the judge to produce what he/she considers to be a more just outcome. This process happens to some extent in all Western countries, particularly with crimes that large sections of the community have ceased to regard as matters for the criminal law (e.g., blasphemy, adultery, vagrancy, offensive language). The police reflect changing community values in the same way, frequently declining to prosecute particular crimes, often by declining to inve
-
Ilíon wrote:
And you can't even see what you've just done... You think this only because you, yourself, are so described.
"Blah blah blah I'm so smart you're all so stupid can't you all see how you're stupid?" except you never even bother to make an argument. All you do is stomp around the forums telling everyone how stupid they are. You're the kind of pseudo-intellectual that lives in their mother's basement too afraid to actually face the world to even go up the stairs, all the while sitting on the computer railing against the world and how stupid it is without even a lick of life experience to tell you so. Waste someone else's time, troll.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
You children are the ones tied to the "Yer a moroon" paradigm; I merely laugh at the attitudes you kiddies exhibit.
Ilíon wrote:
I merely laugh at the attitudes you kiddies exhibit.
Of course you do. People who actually have something better to do, and a brain to do it with, wouldn't waste time on such trivialities.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Ilíon wrote:
I merely laugh at the attitudes you kiddies exhibit.
Of course you do. People who actually have something better to do, and a brain to do it with, wouldn't waste time on such trivialities.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick Sears wrote:
Of course you do. People who actually have something better to do, and a brain to do it with, wouldn't waste time on such trivialities.
And yet, here you are ... "wast[ing] time on such trivialities" as asserting your superiority to me. I realize that logical consistency isn't a big deal for you folk. :laugh:
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
Of course you do. People who actually have something better to do, and a brain to do it with, wouldn't waste time on such trivialities.
And yet, here you are ... "wast[ing] time on such trivialities" as asserting your superiority to me. I realize that logical consistency isn't a big deal for you folk. :laugh:
Ilíon wrote:
I realize that logical consistency isn't a big deal for you folk.
:zzz: I'm not the one wasting time laughing at "the attitudes you kiddies exhibit." But then, I don't suppose logical consistency is a big point for YOU, either. Perhaps what I'm doing IS a waste of time, but it certainly bears no resemblance to what you are doing.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein