Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:07:50 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>>  It means, "We would like to encourage you to do
>> something specifically religious, not not just religious, but specific
>> to a specific 'set' of religions, since some don't."
> 
> No, really, it doesn't.  At least not to me.

Do all religions have such thing as "prayer"?

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:09:53 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:07:50 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> 
>>>  It means, "We would like to encourage you to do
>>> something specifically religious, not not just religious, but specific
>>> to a specific 'set' of religions, since some don't."
>> 
>> No, really, it doesn't.  At least not to me.
> 
> Do all religions have such thing as "prayer"?

I couldn't possibly speak to all religions.  Some involve meditation, 
which would be very roughly analogous.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Defining "species" based on the decisions made by groups of living beings
> (even if those decisions are instinctive) is just silly.

Here's my problem with that:

By this very statement, the fruitflies are different species. It's simply 
the decisions made by a group of *humans* that determines whether the fruit 
flies reproduce. They're not going to do it on their own. The only way it 
would happen is if humans decided to pick up teeny tiny scalpels and make it 
happen.

And isn't instinct driven by genetics? How can you say genetically-dictated 
behavior doesn't contribute to two creatures being different species, but 
then say a species in theory can be determined simply by looking at the 
genetics?

Imagine if a whale and a dolphin were genetically compatible. I'd still call 
them separate species, because it would be impossible to bring a cross of 
those two to term without the genetics of human beings. Namely, the genetics 
of human beings that gave us hands and brains big enough to invent 
artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization and artificial wombs. I'd 
argue that if trying to bring a child to term kills the mother and the child 
before the child is born, the two creatures are a different species.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> And isn't instinct driven by genetics? How can you say genetically-dictated 
> behavior doesn't contribute to two creatures being different species, but 
> then say a species in theory can be determined simply by looking at the 
> genetics?

  Genetically-dictated behavior may end up causing (true) speciation over
time (if it keeps the two groups genetically separate long enough). However,
by which definition can you say that they are *already* different species
when they are still fully capable of interbreeding?

> Imagine if a whale and a dolphin were genetically compatible. I'd still call 
> them separate species, because it would be impossible to bring a cross of 
> those two to term without the genetics of human beings.

  You could as well argue that dog races which differ greatly in size are
of different species. However, they are not considered such. Even if one
dog race weights a hundred times more than another, they are still part
of the same species.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> by which definition can you say that they are *already* different species
> when they are still fully capable of interbreeding?

Who says they are, if they won't?  I already supplied my definition. :-)

>> Imagine if a whale and a dolphin were genetically compatible. I'd still call 
>> them separate species, because it would be impossible to bring a cross of 
>> those two to term without the genetics of human beings.
> 
>   You could as well argue that dog races which differ greatly in size are
> of different species. However, they are not considered such. Even if one
> dog race weights a hundred times more than another, they are still part
> of the same species.

I'm just trying to figure out what your definition might be.  I think 
different dog races are the same species by my definition, while the whale 
and dolphin would not be by my definition. So your analogy fails in that 
respect.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/17/2011 10:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:09:53 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:07:50 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>
>>>>   It means, "We would like to encourage you to do
>>>> something specifically religious, not not just religious, but specific
>>>> to a specific 'set' of religions, since some don't."
>>>
>>> No, really, it doesn't.  At least not to me.
>>
>> Do all religions have such thing as "prayer"?
>
> I couldn't possibly speak to all religions.  Some involve meditation,
> which would be very roughly analogous.
>
> Jim
The effects are certainly analogous, based on study of the effects. A 
fact that is quite funny since you don't have to "meditate" *at* anyone 
specific to get the result, or about anything specific, etc., so anyone 
can do it, where prayer is supposedly "specific" to the deity(ies) in 
questions.

That said, no, not all religions use either. Though, the only obvious 
one I can think of would be Scientology. In principle, performance of a 
ritual, whether it involves something like prayer or not, would qualify 
as religious, if directed at connecting to/effecting supernatural 
forces. Prayer is simply the most common one for the two "recognized" 
religions when ever this stuff comes up (i.e. Christians and Jews), may 
be allowed for something like Muslims, if they bother to include them, 
and isn't, technically, part of the third one they tend to mention, to 
be "inclusive" - Buddhism. However, this is likely because 90% of the 
people talking about religions in this context, don't know a bloody damn 
thing about the religion, other than its been used as a "safe" one to 
pick when talking about their "inclusiveness" for so long that its 
almost Pavlovian to include it.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:29:30 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> In principle, performance of a
> ritual, whether it involves something like prayer or not, would qualify
> as religious, if directed at connecting to/effecting supernatural
> forces.

I think pretty much everyone follows rituals of some sort, regardless of 
whether they admit to it or not.

Is it more or less religious, for example, to pray to a god, than it is 
to wear a red shirt to a ballgame because the last time you went to a 
ballgame wearing a red shirt, your team won?

Religion and superstition are very closely related in a lot of ways - so 
much so that some would say they're the same.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2011 11:38 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:29:30 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> In principle, performance of a
>> ritual, whether it involves something like prayer or not, would qualify
>> as religious, if directed at connecting to/effecting supernatural
>> forces.
>
> I think pretty much everyone follows rituals of some sort, regardless of
> whether they admit to it or not.
>
> Is it more or less religious, for example, to pray to a god, than it is
> to wear a red shirt to a ballgame because the last time you went to a
> ballgame wearing a red shirt, your team won?
>
> Religion and superstition are very closely related in a lot of ways - so
> much so that some would say they're the same.
>
> Jim
Why hedge the matter and say "some would say". There is hardly any 
difference at all between someone ringing a bell, to scare off evil Kami 
at the new year, or someone putting on the same shirt they did the last 
time their team won. The only real difference is that one is followed by 
a lot of people, the other, just by one. Its still the same thing. The 
only thing making Prayer different is that it often includes a process 
which "can" sometimes trigger the same effects as meditation, where as 
ringing a magic bell, or wearing a particular shirt, doesn't.

Mind, this wouldn't stop some people arguing that this was evidence of 
something "different" going on, then insisting that "different" means 
"spooks and 2,000 year old zombies".

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:28:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Why hedge the matter and say "some would say". 

Because while you believe there is no difference, some believe there is.  
Who am I to say they're (or you're, or - for that matter - I'm) wrong?

> There is hardly any
> difference at all between someone ringing a bell, to scare off evil Kami
> at the new year, or someone putting on the same shirt they did the last
> time their team won. The only real difference is that one is followed by
> a lot of people, the other, just by one. Its still the same thing. The
> only thing making Prayer different is that it often includes a process
> which "can" sometimes trigger the same effects as meditation, where as
> ringing a magic bell, or wearing a particular shirt, doesn't.

Depends on the individual.  In both cases one can make the argument that 
correlation does not imply causation.  So what?

> Mind, this wouldn't stop some people arguing that this was evidence of
> something "different" going on, then insisting that "different" means
> "spooks and 2,000 year old zombies".

That doesn't mean there's a need to be offensive to those who take 
comfort in wearing the red shirt to the basketball game, or to those who 
take comfort in saying a prayer to a deity, real or not.

Similarly, I have on occasion used Tarot cards to help clarify my 
thinking on topics.  In my opinion, one has to read the cards 
themselves.  Why?  Because there's absolutely nothing mystical about them 
(or about astrology, for that matter).  They're nothing more than systems 
to help one frame thinking about something.

I haven't had to use that particular method to identify my own 
motivations on something (or to help me think rationally about a decision 
I was about to make) for quite some time.

Some people who read Tarot cards (especially for other people) look at 
the results and say "it's mysticism" because the results are often what 
people want.

But the principle at work, I think, really is confirmation bias.

Last time I seriously used the cards was deciding whether or not to take 
a new job.  I was having trouble focusing on what was important for me 
and what was important for my family.  We talked about it and went back 
and forth, and I decided that I'd use a system to help me frame my 
thoughts.

Now, ultimately, I knew I wanted to take the new job.  I knew it was a 
good decision, but I had some doubts.

So I put the cards down in a prescribed pattern where every single card 
has a specific meaning based on where it is.  And I referred to an 
interpretation of the individual cards' meanings that helped me organize 
my thoughts.

And after I used that technique to clarify my thinking and what I wanted 
out of a new job, I accepted the offer.

Nothing mystical about it at all.  I used a system to identify what I 
wanted and to identify/weigh the pros and cons before making a decision.

Now, if someone decides to say a prayer to a deity in order to make a 
decision and as a result of framing their thoughts for this deity 
(whether it exists or not is immaterial), is able to make a clear 
decision.

Some call that divine intervention.  You and I call it applying reason.  
In either case, a decision is reached and if it goes well, whomever 
credit goes to, a positive result is reached.

It's really no different than what I used to do when faced with a 
particularly challenging IT problem - I'd call my wife.  I found that in 
explaining the problem to her, I could often find the solution, but the 
act of trying to explain it to someone who's not an IT professional 
really helped me understand the issue better.

So there again, I don't think it's necessary to be offensive to those who 
are happy to believe that some supernatural power intervened - whether 
that's the case or not.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Why hedge the matter and say "some would say". There is hardly any 
> difference at all 

There's actually a fairly big difference between ritual and superstition, 
even if the ritual is only practiced by one person.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> And after I used that technique to clarify my thinking and what I wanted 
> out of a new job, I accepted the offer.

If you need to make a decision, flip a coin. Between the time the coin lands 
and the time you look at it, you'll learn exactly what it is you're hoping 
you'll find.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2011 8:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:28:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Why hedge the matter and say "some would say".
>
> Because while you believe there is no difference, some believe there is.
> Who am I to say they're (or you're, or - for that matter - I'm) wrong?
>
Its called "critical thinking". Apparently a practice that isn't taught 
too well in colleges (never mind it should start in grade school:

"After the full four years, 36 percent had shown no development in 
critical thinking, reasoning and writing, according to the study, which 
forms the basis of the new book "Academically Adrift: Limited Learning 
on College Campuses.""

If you don't know how to interpret facts in the first place, you can 
hardly, in the case of those people with the opinion there "is" some 
huge difference, whine about someone else pointing out that there isn't 
any. Right?

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2011 8:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> So there again, I don't think it's necessary to be offensive to those who
> are happy to believe that some supernatural power intervened - whether
> that's the case or not.
>
> Jim
The problem is.. It doesn't just stop at them using it to effect their 
*own* lives. Failure to recognize that it is a form of applied reasoning 
(and I would argue that isn't always the case, since you need data to 
reason from, and religion tends to reject wide ranges of data and 
sources), leads people to trying to make decisions for *others* based on 
the same reasoning. It also leads them, invariably, to false 
equivalencies, failure to understand what they are actually advocating 
for/against, etc. We spent decades in the US, far more than any other 
country in the world, being "nice" to the religious, religious views, 
religious interpretations, and telling everyone, "We respect the wacky 
shit you believe!", we got fundamentalists, George Bush, Sarah Palin, 
and the Tea Party, oh, and some bozo trying to build an Ark in Kentucky, 
and whining about conspiracies, every time real experts, instead of his 
own friend, claims his "attendance and income projections" are even more 
fictional than Genesis.

Oh, right, and it also plays in to the hands of quack psychology, quack 
pharmacology, quack gizmos, modern patent medicine gibberish, and all 
the rest of the stuff, which preys in the same inability to tell the 
difference between confirmation bias, placebo, and/or what their own 
brain is doing, versus "quantum, spiritual, all natural, suplimental, 
toothpaste", or what ever they have made up this week to sell the same 
fools.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> I'll just point out again that it wasn't the executive branch, but the 
> >> congress, that declared a national day of prayer.
> > 
> >   The first words of the first amendment to your constitution somehow
> > resonate in my head when I read that, causing a terrible pain...
> > 

> Yeah, me too.

  Btw, the attitude that Americans have towards their Constitution seems
quite strange. Seemingly they consider it an infallible and untouchable
holy scripture, and even the idea of going and changing even a single letter
of it is tantamous to blasphemy. (Amendments can be added, but changing
existing text, *especially* the original text written by the Founding
Fathers, is considered some kind of sacrilege.)

  This goes sometimes to such ridiculous extents as there being a small
controversy on whether a small smudge in article 1, section 10, is accidental
or really a comma. If it's really a comma (rather than an accidental drop of
ink), the sentence could ostensibly be interpreted slightly differently.

  It feels like the Constitution is holier than the Bible itself. Not even
a small smudge can be altered! Instead, lots of speculation and controversy
arise about what is it that the authors really meant when they wrote the
constitution.

  I don't understand where this idea is coming from. I have never heard
of any other country which would have such an attitude towards their
constitution. In most other countries I know of (obviously most importantly
Finland) the constitution reflects the current "state of art" in human
rights and the foundations of parliamentarian democracy. Changing the text
of the constitution is not something that can be done lightly, of course
(it requires, among other things, something like a 70% majority vote in the
parliament), but there are no qualms in doing so as needed.

  The United States constitution and its first amendments reflect the
"state of art" of human rights and democracy of the 1780's. The world has
changed a bit since then. It was rather obviously impossible for the authors
to know how the world would be like in 2011.

  Just consider the second amendment, for instance. In 1787 the most commonly
used handgun was a muzzle-loaded musket, which was very inaccurate and very
slow to load (the first fully self-contained breech-loaded cartridges were
not invented until about 1808, and eg. the modern revolver did not become
commonly used until Samuel Colt patented a revolver mechanism in 1836 that
led to its widespread use.) In the 1780's you could probably do more damage
with a sword than with a handgun.

  That is the background under which the second amendment was written.
Nowadays it's used to argue for the right of people to own fully automatic
rapid-fire weapons such as the M16 rifle or the Browning M2 machine gun.
Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what the authors had in mind when they wrote
the second amendment.

  The original constitution of the United States is an invaluable piece of
history, but where is this idea coming from that it's perfect, infallible
and completely applicable to the modern world, over 200 years later?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> of it is tantamous to blasphemy. (Amendments can be added, but changing
> existing text, *especially* the original text written by the Founding
> Fathers, is considered some kind of sacrilege.)

Adding text to the end is how we change it.  One amendment says "By the way, 
now the federal government is allowed to pass laws about alcohol, too." 
Another, later, says "That was a mistake. The federal government no longer 
gets to do that."

>   This goes sometimes to such ridiculous extents as there being a small
> controversy on whether a small smudge in article 1, section 10, is accidental
> or really a comma. If it's really a comma (rather than an accidental drop of
> ink), the sentence could ostensibly be interpreted slightly differently.

I think this is true of a great number of legal systems, really. Arguing 
over the precise meaning of sentences and words and asking whether they 
apply in this particular case is exactly what the whole appeals process is 
about.

I'm not sure what drop of ink you're talking about. Are you exaggerating for 
effect, or have you actually heard an argument about this? (I *have* heard 
that in some contract disputes, but not the Constitution.)

>   It feels like the Constitution is holier than the Bible itself. Not even
> a small smudge can be altered! Instead, lots of speculation and controversy
> arise about what is it that the authors really meant when they wrote the
> constitution.

It's the highest law in the country. If you can convince the supreme court 
that the law as written means a certain thing, regardless of *why* it means 
that, then that decision is enforced on everyone in the country. So, yeah, 
it's a lot like the Bible, were God actually real and enforcing it. :-)

>   That is the background under which the second amendment was written.
> Nowadays it's used to argue for the right of people to own fully automatic
> rapid-fire weapons such as the M16 rifle or the Browning M2 machine gun.
> Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what the authors had in mind when they wrote
> the second amendment.

Chances are, it is.  The whole point of the second amendment is to give the 
people forming the government the ability to overthrow the government if it 
goes badly.

Now, admittedly, it turns out that *today*, we've figured out that this 
"democracy" thing and this "federal" thing isn't too bad and is not too hard 
to steer. But at the time, just coming off King's rule and feudalism, it 
wasn't really obvious that a new democratic government was going to work 
out.  And, really, it wasn't until after the US Civil War that the federal 
government really took over the governing from the individual states.

>   The original constitution of the United States is an invaluable piece of
> history, but where is this idea coming from that it's perfect, infallible
> and completely applicable to the modern world, over 200 years later?

It's not. Most people don't think it is. That's why we have amendments every 
few decades, including amendments that contradict what's already written. 
It's just that the legal mechanisms for amending the constitution don't say 
"cross out this text". Many other laws in this country do, but we just don't 
do that with the federal constitution.  It's not because there's some 
strange reverence.

Some judges think it should be interpreted as "original intent". Some think 
it should be interpreted in a more modern way. It's an ongoing battle, with 
people picking sides not out of any particular philosophy but out of

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/21/2011 10:42 AM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>>>> I'll just point out again that it wasn't the executive branch, but the
>>>> congress, that declared a national day of prayer.
>>>
>>>    The first words of the first amendment to your constitution somehow
>>> resonate in my head when I read that, causing a terrible pain...
>>>
>
>> Yeah, me too.
>
>    Btw, the attitude that Americans have towards their Constitution seems
> quite strange. Seemingly they consider it an infallible and untouchable
> holy scripture, and even the idea of going and changing even a single letter
> of it is tantamous to blasphemy. (Amendments can be added, but changing
> existing text, *especially* the original text written by the Founding
> Fathers, is considered some kind of sacrilege.)
>
Not true.. There have been recent calls by some of the "new" people on 
the right wing to "repeal" whole sections of it, ranging from 
desegregation, to well... if it involves civil liberties, or the right 
to not be lorded over by religious fanatics, they want it removed. Those 
things apparently being "unnecessary", sort of like taxes, health care 
and the minimum wage.

No, the ones that are required to take it as a sacred document, in 
theory, is the supreme court. Which is why the ones now there, all 
appointed, and non-removable, by right wingers, have ignored it, and 
case law, in order to declare corporations full citizens, and thus able 
to spend every dime they have to elect people who will write corporate 
friendly laws (and maybe even adjust the constitution, so they can deny 
people the right to work/get service there, if they don't like their 
religion, color, or national origin).

I bloody wish they took it as sacred. Though.. maybe that is the 
problem... these idiots don't read their own damn bible with enough 
seriousness to have a frakking clue what it says, its hardly a surprise 
they have an equal amount of "total respect" for the constitution, i.e., 
no frakking clue what it actually says, since actually reading and 
understanding it would like, I don't know.. taint it, or be a sin, or 
something...?

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I'm not sure what drop of ink you're talking about. Are you exaggerating for 
> effect, or have you actually heard an argument about this? (I *have* heard 
> that in some contract disputes, but not the Constitution.)

  I misremembered: The smudge-that-could-be-a-comma was not in article 1,
but in the 5th amendment (the typo in article 1 is an "it's" which should
be an "its").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errors_in_the_United_States_Constitution

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:26:25 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 1/19/2011 8:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:28:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> Why hedge the matter and say "some would say".
>>
>> Because while you believe there is no difference, some believe there
>> is. Who am I to say they're (or you're, or - for that matter - I'm)
>> wrong?
>>
> Its called "critical thinking". Apparently a practice that isn't taught
> too well in colleges (never mind it should start in grade school:
> 
> "After the full four years, 36 percent had shown no development in
> critical thinking, reasoning and writing, according to the study, which
> forms the basis of the new book "Academically Adrift: Limited Learning
> on College Campuses.""

Sure, it's critical thinking, but just because people don't employ it the 
same way you do, that doesn't make it wrong.  There's nothing wrong with 
having a system that works for an individual to organize one's thoughts 
in a way that lets you think about them.

> If you don't know how to interpret facts in the first place, you can
> hardly, in the case of those people with the opinion there "is" some
> huge difference, whine about someone else pointing out that there isn't
> any. Right?

Sure.  But at the same time, if you use a tool to help you organize facts 
so you can interpret them, that puts you in a position of being able to 
talk about the different interpretations, or seeing that there isn't any.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 23:05:39 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> And after I used that technique to clarify my thinking and what I
>> wanted out of a new job, I accepted the offer.
> 
> If you need to make a decision, flip a coin. Between the time the coin
> lands and the time you look at it, you'll learn exactly what it is
> you're hoping you'll find.

That might work for you, it doesn't work for me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:35:39 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 1/19/2011 8:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> So there again, I don't think it's necessary to be offensive to those
>> who are happy to believe that some supernatural power intervened -
>> whether that's the case or not.
>>
>> Jim
> The problem is.. It doesn't just stop at them using it to effect their
> *own* lives. 

If the outcome is agreeable to everyone, there isn't a problem with 
this.  In my case, of course it affected more than just my life, it 
affected my wife's life and my stepson's life.  And we talked about it as 
well, but they ultimately said that since I'm the one who will be 
affected the most by the change (in that what I do from day to day would 
change dramatically), that ultimately it was my decision to make.

> Failure to recognize that it is a form of applied reasoning
> (and I would argue that isn't always the case, since you need data to
> reason from, and religion tends to reject wide ranges of data and
> sources), leads people to trying to make decisions for *others* based on
> the same reasoning. 

Which is why I don't think anyone should ever, ever, ever do a tarot 
reading for someone else, because it shifts the purpose from really 
organizing one's thoughts about an issue to just being entertainment.

There's absolutely nothing mystical about it at all when done properly.

> It also leads them, invariably, to false
> equivalencies, failure to understand what they are actually advocating
> for/against, etc. 

I find for me that when I do a "reading" myself, it actually *helps* me 
understand what I'm actually advocating for/against.  Because it's a tool 
that helps me be introspective while looking at the topic from all 
angles.  That's how I use the tool, and why it's an appropriate tool for 
me.

> We spent decades in the US, far more than any other
> country in the world, being "nice" to the religious, [...]

Yeah, there are whackos out there.  There are also non-religious whackos 
out there.

> Oh, right, and it also plays in to the hands of quack psychology, quack
> pharmacology, quack gizmos, modern patent medicine gibberish, and all
> the rest of the stuff, which preys in the same inability to tell the
> difference between confirmation bias, placebo, and/or what their own
> brain is doing, versus "quantum, spiritual, all natural, suplimental,
> toothpaste", or what ever they have made up this week to sell the same
> fools.

That's a completely different topic.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errors_in_the_United_States_Constitution

Thanks!  I was completely unaware of that debate. :-)

Given that the details of commas in british english differ from american 
english, I'm rather surprised anyone is making a fuss about such a thing.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/21/2011 12:19 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:26:25 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> On 1/19/2011 8:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:28:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why hedge the matter and say "some would say".
>>>
>>> Because while you believe there is no difference, some believe there
>>> is. Who am I to say they're (or you're, or - for that matter - I'm)
>>> wrong?
>>>
>> Its called "critical thinking". Apparently a practice that isn't taught
>> too well in colleges (never mind it should start in grade school:
>>
>> "After the full four years, 36 percent had shown no development in
>> critical thinking, reasoning and writing, according to the study, which
>> forms the basis of the new book "Academically Adrift: Limited Learning
>> on College Campuses.""
>
> Sure, it's critical thinking, but just because people don't employ it the
> same way you do, that doesn't make it wrong.  There's nothing wrong with
> having a system that works for an individual to organize one's thoughts
> in a way that lets you think about them.
>
>> If you don't know how to interpret facts in the first place, you can
>> hardly, in the case of those people with the opinion there "is" some
>> huge difference, whine about someone else pointing out that there isn't
>> any. Right?
>
> Sure.  But at the same time, if you use a tool to help you organize facts
> so you can interpret them, that puts you in a position of being able to
> talk about the different interpretations, or seeing that there isn't any.
>
> Jim
Point is, usually the "method" goes hand in hand with the failure to 
learn the facts needed to make an effective decision. Odds are, the vast 
majority of people with Tarot cards *do not* use them as a system to 
work out what to do, based on knowing sufficient facts. They use them to 
derive what they want to see, usually for someone else, by cajoling 
people into giving them information (i.e. a magic trick, and not even an 
honest one, for either involved). There is a difference between someone 
that realized what they are doing, and does it for themselves, and the 
majority, who would never even question that it worked via magic, or one 
sort or another. The later isn't going to look for facts, examine their 
own premises, attempt to understand the real causes behind things they 
already "assume" to be true.

Basically, what I am saying is, a crutch can help you do something you 
can't, temporary or otherwise, when you need it. If you spend you whole 
life being told you *must* use a crutch to do things, eventually you 
stop trying without it, even if you don't really need it. The end result 
becomes that you are so reliant of the crutch, and so unaware of why 
your world view has been distorted, that there are, invariably, some 
things that you can never do, imagine doing, or understand how to do, 
since doing them requires putting down the crutch first.

I could care less if someone has an "alternative" way to process 
something to get a valid result. The problem is, most of this stuff was 
invented to get a *specific* result out of its users, practitioners, and 
even its teachers, and the end result has *never* been to question 
assumptions, understand how things work, outside of the sphere of 
explanations allowed by them, and curtail discovery. After all, "Idle 
hands are the devils play thing", is a concept that exists in just about 
every religion, cast system, or authoritarian vision, and the method of 
controlling them involves a) never letting anyone have time to question, 
and b) if they do, having convenient rituals, stories, and meditations, 
directed at making people accept the way thing are "supposed" to be, 
without questioning them.

This is the core of all such practices. That they can be adopted to do 
other things, if you know what they are, why they work, and honestly 
approach them, doesn't change the fact that virtually every single "true 
believer" in any of these things is still walking around with the 
crutch, convinced they can do nothing without it, and that their whole 
world view is only true, proper, and complete, if seen in relation to 
the existence of the crutch.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/21/2011 12:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> We spent decades in the US, far more than any other
>> country in the world, being "nice" to the religious, [...]
>
> Yeah, there are whackos out there.  There are also non-religious whackos
> out there.
>
True. Though, as one person once stated it, "Do you refuse to treat a 
recognized, and maybe curable, cancer, because there are a lot of other 
sorts of cancers your cure won't fix?" One less source of wackos is 
still one less source.

>> Oh, right, and it also plays in to the hands of quack psychology, quack
>> pharmacology, quack gizmos, modern patent medicine gibberish, and all
>> the rest of the stuff, which preys in the same inability to tell the
>> difference between confirmation bias, placebo, and/or what their own
>> brain is doing, versus "quantum, spiritual, all natural, suplimental,
>> toothpaste", or what ever they have made up this week to sell the same
>> fools.
>
> That's a completely different topic.
>
> Jim
But related. Once willing to give up reason on one subject, its easy to 
fall prey to others. And, again, the majority of people playing with 
something like Tarot are *not* doing so honestly, or with themselves, 
they are doing it because it is simply a different sort of "power 
bracelet", which fits into the gibberish they already fell for.

In any case, you don't make progress against it by a) ignoring it (it 
won't go away), b) pretending its not a problem (they have no problem 
claiming you are a problem instead), or c) trying to refute it on a case 
by case basis (they will happily present you with 80 cases in five 
minutes, then demand that you address why all of them are wrong, or you 
lose, in the same time, even when you can't properly address the *first* 
one, in 10x as many minutes).

The only way to effectively address it is all at once, early, before 
people get overly hooked into it. And, we can't get people to teach what 
is needed to do that in bloody colleges here, never mind to 8 year olds, 
never mind that there is plenty of evidence that this *is* possible, of 
parents let us do it, instead of whining in abject horror at the idea 
that schools is about how to think, not just jamming facts in, and 
hoping they stay there long enough to test.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:26:02 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>> Yeah, there are whackos out there.  There are also non-religious
>> whackos out there.
>>
> True. Though, as one person once stated it, "Do you refuse to treat a
> recognized, and maybe curable, cancer, because there are a lot of other
> sorts of cancers your cure won't fix?" One less source of wackos is
> still one less source.

Sure, but there are also plenty of reasonable people who are religious as 
well.

The whackos are the minority of any particular group, generally (unless 
you're talking exclusively about a group of whackos, that is <g>).

>> That's a completely different topic.
>>
> But related. Once willing to give up reason on one subject, its easy to
> fall prey to others. And, again, the majority of people playing with
> something like Tarot are *not* doing so honestly, or with themselves,
> they are doing it because it is simply a different sort of "power
> bracelet", which fits into the gibberish they already fell for.

And that's their decision to make.  Lots of strange things happen in a 
free society.  If you don't want that to happen, you need to go to a less 
free society.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:17:01 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Point is, usually the "method" goes hand in hand with the failure to
> learn the facts needed to make an effective decision. Odds are, the vast
> majority of people with Tarot cards *do not* use them as a system to
> work out what to do, based on knowing sufficient facts.

Sure, there are bad people in the world.  That's also a consequence of a 
free society - some people will take advantage of other people.

The solution isn't to remove the thing that people use to be dishonest, 
it's to address the dishonesty head on.  Which is what law is intended to 
do.

The same argument can be made about gun control:  rather than heavily 
regulate guns in the US, make the bad usages illegal and deal with those 
who break the law.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 17/01/2011 7:42 PM, Stephen wrote:
> Got it :-D
> I'll take a bit to compare them. O_O

Did you get the file?


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 22:27:58 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 17/01/2011 7:42 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> Got it :-D
>> I'll take a bit to compare them. O_O
> 
> Did you get the file?

I did indeed, and listened to it last night.  Wonderful stuff. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 24/01/2011 10:41 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Did you get the file?
> I did indeed, and listened to it last night.  Wonderful stuff.:-)
>

:-D

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 1/24/2011 3:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:17:01 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Point is, usually the "method" goes hand in hand with the failure to
>> learn the facts needed to make an effective decision. Odds are, the vast
>> majority of people with Tarot cards *do not* use them as a system to
>> work out what to do, based on knowing sufficient facts.
>
> Sure, there are bad people in the world.  That's also a consequence of a
> free society - some people will take advantage of other people.
>
> The solution isn't to remove the thing that people use to be dishonest,
> it's to address the dishonesty head on.  Which is what law is intended to
> do.
>
> The same argument can be made about gun control:  rather than heavily
> regulate guns in the US, make the bad usages illegal and deal with those
> who break the law.
>
> Jim
The only flaw in that is you can't go back and "undo" things that 
already happened. Making bad uses illegal is meaningless if the "bad 
use" is something like people dying, or losing all of their money. 
Ironically, there **are** laws on the books, lots of them, making doing 
either to someone illegal. Oddly enough, they have no effect at all at 
either preventing the misuse of a gun, when they are easily available, 
or preventing people's money stolen from them for what *they* are 
convinced is real, but the shop owner only gets by with even selling at 
all by labeling it "entertainment" (this rule can vary from place to 
place, but in most cases the law says its legal only as an amusement).

Its con artist lying about being a magician, so that they can rob people 
that believe magic actually works. Or, its someone that thinks it does 
work, pretending to be a magician, because its not legal to do it 
otherwise, unintentionally robbing gullible people that also believe in 
it out of their money. Either way, its not strictly legal for them, at 
least under a lot of laws, to claim they can *actually* do any of it, 
any more than it is legal for someone selling a bottle of mostly water 
(i.e. homeopathy) to *actually* claim that their tap water can cure 
cancer. The problem is, more than half the idiots writing the laws 
either have stake in the same game/business, or believe in it, and thus 
these giant loopholes exist, like being able to sell, say, Airborne, 
with no evidence, fake credentials, fake creators, fake "research 
institutes", outright bold face lie about all of it, then get by with it 
because the only "legal" requirement is that they do not specifically 
claim that it "cures" anything (though you can claim it helps, even if 
the evidence is all fishy, inconsistent, and not generally accepted by 
anyone but the quacks), and it says it is a "supplement". Same, as I 
said, with Tarot card readers, and the like. As long as its 
"entertainment", it doesn't matter if the thief charges the target 50 
cents, $50 dollars, or $50,000 dollars, they paid for an 
"entertainment", and can only get in trouble of the person scammed 
actually sues them, and can prove the thief *actually* claimed it was real.

Thankfully, or perhaps sadly, this isn't often too hard, whether it be 
the rather inconvenient corpse resulting from lax gun control, or the 
fact that nearly every practitioner of bullshit, not matter how cleverly 
they work the loopholes, tends to "believe" their own BS, making it hard 
for them to argue they charged someone $50,000 to be "entertained".

Or, to put it another way, you can't legislate human behavior, 
gullibility, or wishful thinking by making the *outcomes* illegal. You 
can only do it by limiting the range of situations where those behaviors 
will produce a negative outcome. And you *definitely* can't do it if the 
consequences are purely post-hoc, do not address the underlying reason 
why people keep doing it, like mental illness, or poor education, and 
instead do nothing but increase the jail time, or otherwise fiddle with 
the punishment. You either have to prevent the behavior on some level, 
or you have to make sure as few people as possible see it as a viable 
option.

Some things, like psychic BS is so easy to pull, and so close to the 
pre-existing "wish fulfillment" people seek anyway, that the "costs" of 
getting caught, never mind the likelihood of failing to find a victim 
are both easily accepted. Like a pick pocket in a room full of blind 
people, with bad counting skills, and no guards. The odds that most of 
them will even notice you lifting a few coins is small, and you only do 
get in trouble of you are stupid enough to get overly greedy. The 
cost... might be fairly high, or it might be simply not being allowed 
into the innumeracy club for the blind again. If its the later, its 
simple enough to just find new people to pick pocket. And *that* is the 
case with "psychic" gibberish (and religions, but that is another 
matter). With guns, its a bit different. We know the consequences are 
stupidly high for the victim, we have set the consequence about as high 
as we can get it (or as high, in places with death penalties), yet... we 
have lowered the bar, in some places, to the risk of it actually 
happening, the availability of the tool used to do so, and all other 
factors, including the "need" some people insist they have to own dozens 
of those tools, to the point where its like hoping that people don't 
show up at the next comic con wearing cheesy costumes. You will *always* 
be disappointed, since nearly everyone will do it, and no matter how 
much you legislate the consequence, there will be the one person that 
tries to show up as "the nude avenger", or something else that crosses 
what ever line you placed on how bad, cheesy, or questionable the costume.

In short, make it so every has a gun, anyone can carry one, and do 
**nothing** to address **any** of the other issues, or what ever excuse 
there is for allowing people to get by with so many other things via 
loopholes, or easy access, or failure of any oversight, when the 
*actual* thing they did is illegal as hell already, and can't be made 
any more so... well, the value of that is highly debatable when the 
people that are injured as a result of failing to address anything but 
the post-hoc punishment of the shooter, or scammer, or bank baron, or 
rapist, or whatever, are either dead, scarred for life, bankrupt, or 
otherwise seriously/permanently injured.

In case you are not getting what I am saying, I have no problem with 
people selling Tarot cards. I have a set myself, though I found them 
pretty useless for "anything" at all, unlike you. But, I would lay odds 
that you are the rare exception, with a fair certainty of being right, 
with respect to the number that have them, and don't either believe the 
stuff they are selling (which doesn't change scamming people with them 
being illegal), or *intentionally* scamming them with the things. This 
doesn't mean you ban the cards, it means you make frakking law so that 
they can't "entertain" anyone with them either, with being very precise 
what that means, and that it doesn't mean, "Charge them stupid amounts 
of money for it, or less, lot and lots of times."

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/24/2011 3:18 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:26:02 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, there are whackos out there.  There are also non-religious
>>> whackos out there.
>>>
>> True. Though, as one person once stated it, "Do you refuse to treat a
>> recognized, and maybe curable, cancer, because there are a lot of other
>> sorts of cancers your cure won't fix?" One less source of wackos is
>> still one less source.
>
> Sure, but there are also plenty of reasonable people who are religious as
> well.
>
There is nothing "reasonable" about religion. Tolerable, yes, but not 
reasonable. That said, I have no more problem tolerating fools spending 
insane amounts of cash on foam hands, and the like, to see a ball game, 
with all the silliness of that, than I do with those you are calling 
"reasonably religious". At least up to the point where one of them 
decides to piss me off by insisting that I *must* where a football 
jersey, or the like, because their "team" is just ever so more important 
than my own *personal* choice of wardrobe. Thankfully, sports fans get 
no where *near* as unreasonable as "reasonable" religious people about 
that sort of thing... Oddly enough, the later can get downright crass, 
if you pick the wrong subject, day, event, or shirt, with very little 
seeming interest in making sure they remain all reasonable, and the like.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:24:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> The only flaw in that is you can't go back and "undo" things that
> already happened. 

Of course, and that's why I'm for gun control and tighter regulation of 
guns in the US.  "Undo" is hard to do if not impossible when death is 
involved.

Slightly different when it comes to someone being swindled out of money.

> Its con artist lying about being a magician, so that they can rob people
> that believe magic actually works. 

Well, PT Barnum *was* right - there's a sucker born every minute.  The 
question is this:  How far does the law have to go in protecting people 
from themselves?

One could extend that question to indicate varying degrees, too - 
protecting people from being swindled out of their life savings (or from 
something that would actually kill them) is one degree.  Swindling 
someone out of $20 for a fake "reading" that's entertainment (even if not 
perceived as such by the recipient)?  That's a long ways down the scale 
of things to be overly concerned about.

> Or, to put it another way, you can't legislate human behavior,
> gullibility, or wishful thinking by making the *outcomes* illegal. 

Depends on whether you're talking about criminal liability (ie, the 
"beyond a reasonable doubt" kind of liability) or civil liability.  Don't 
forget that OJ was found criminally not guilty in the deaths he was 
charged with, but he was found to be liable in civil court.  (Maybe not 
the best example).  Different standards of proof for different 
circumstances is my point.

> pretty useless for "anything" at all, unlike you. But, I would lay odds
> that you are the rare exception, with a fair certainty of being right,
> with respect to the number that have them, and don't either believe the
> stuff they are selling (which doesn't change scamming people with them
> being illegal), or *intentionally* scamming them with the things. This
> doesn't mean you ban the cards, it means you make frakking law so that
> they can't "entertain" anyone with them either, with being very precise
> what that means, and that it doesn't mean, "Charge them stupid amounts
> of money for it, or less, lot and lots of times."

That gets a bit too far into the "nanny state" for my tastes.

BTW, I did note you spelt "frakking" right. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:30:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>> Sure, but there are also plenty of reasonable people who are religious
>> as well.
>>
> There is nothing "reasonable" about religion. 

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.  But I'll note that 
you're conflating "reasonable people" with "reasonable about religion" 
and the two are different.

> than my own *personal* choice of wardrobe. Thankfully, sports fans get
> no where *near* as unreasonable as "reasonable" religious people about
> that sort of thing... 

Maybe you don't hang out with a crowd that does that.  Try hanging out 
with die-hard Utah Jazz fans and tell me there's a difference.  I find 
many of those hard-core sports fans to be much more obnoxious than people 
who practice a religion, or who claim to.

You think I'm wrong, try wearing a Chicago Bulls jersey near the Energy 
Solutions Arena here in SLC on game day.  Or, for a real treat, try 
wearing a Mets jersey in Boston (or for that matter, to a Yankees game).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:24:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> The only flaw in that is you can't go back and "undo" things that
>> already happened. 
> 
> Of course, and that's why I'm for gun control and tighter regulation of 
> guns in the US.  "Undo" is hard to do if not impossible when death is 
> involved.

The problem is that it works both ways. You're just arguing that defenders 
should die instead of attackers. If there's tight regulation on gun control, 
you're letting those who ignore those regulations kill those who obey them, 
without that same "undo" you're trying to control.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/26/2011 3:34 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> pretty useless for "anything" at all, unlike you. But, I would lay odds
>> that you are the rare exception, with a fair certainty of being right,
>> with respect to the number that have them, and don't either believe the
>> stuff they are selling (which doesn't change scamming people with them
>> being illegal), or *intentionally* scamming them with the things. This
>> doesn't mean you ban the cards, it means you make frakking law so that
>> they can't "entertain" anyone with them either, with being very precise
>> what that means, and that it doesn't mean, "Charge them stupid amounts
>> of money for it, or less, lot and lots of times."
>
> That gets a bit too far into the "nanny state" for my tastes.
>
> BTW, I did note you spelt "frakking" right. ;-)
>
> Jim

We do this on a regular basis for "companies" that are even as small as 
a mom and pop outfit, where they have to be actually *selling* what they 
claim, and it has to work as advertised. Oddly, the law says that we not 
only don't, but, thanks to some morons, and congressmen, though as Mark 
Twain stated, "I repeat myself", you can have a multi-billion dollar 
"company" that advertises one thing, sells someone else (most of the 
stuff from "psychic networks", to homeopathy), and the law *can't* do 
anything about it. Apparently, if you are MGM, you can be sued for 
delivering a blank screen, while promising a movie, and badly enough 
that you may lose your business, but if you are selling "energy 
balancing" bracelets, or the like, you may only lose a few thousand, and 
have the change the logo.

Its not about nanny stating. Its about getting rid of the damn loopholes 
that let them do what *is* illegal otherwise, but, due to some stupid 
idiocy, is either not prosecutable, not *really* illegal, in that 
context, or is somehow specially privileged, so untouchable. Its about 
honesty in advertising, and honesty in delivery. Neither of which means 
jack, if all the person has to do is jab on a label that says, "I really 
didn't mean everything I just said in 50 TV commercials, the 8 hours I 
spent selling it at the convention, or implied with 800 testimonials, 
mostly from people I paid to make them.", and get off scott free from 
being called a liar, let alone jail time, or a sufficient punishment to 
stop it happening again.

And you know the really insane thing about it? Most of this crap is made 
and shipped from places like China, Taiwan, and everyone *but* the US. 
So you have con artists, or just nuts, selling this stuff, basically 
untouchable, as long as they put the proper legerdemain on it, and its 
not even benefiting anyone *here*, but some bozo in another country, who 
is laughing their asses off at both the buyer, and the seller.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 27/01/2011 1:36 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> And you know the really insane thing about it? Most of this crap is made
> and shipped from places like China, Taiwan, and everyone *but* the US.
> So you have con artists, or just nuts, selling this stuff, basically
> untouchable, as long as they put the proper legerdemain on it, and its
> not even benefiting anyone *here*, but some bozo in another country, who
> is laughing their asses off at both the buyer, and the seller.

Another way of looking at it is, someone at home is shipping it from 
China, Taiwan etc. to make a profit. But that is the free market for you.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 1/26/2011 4:29 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:24:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> The only flaw in that is you can't go back and "undo" things that
>>> already happened.
>>
>> Of course, and that's why I'm for gun control and tighter regulation
>> of guns in the US. "Undo" is hard to do if not impossible when death
>> is involved.
>
> The problem is that it works both ways. You're just arguing that
> defenders should die instead of attackers. If there's tight regulation
> on gun control, you're letting those who ignore those regulations kill
> those who obey them, without that same "undo" you're trying to control.
>
There is a lot of circular logic going on here yes. The defenders are 
dying anyway, along with the victims. There was someone else at the 
Arizona incident **with** a gun, who managed to be rational enough to 
not pull on, and shoot, one of the defenders, after he got the gun away 
from the shooter. Some hot head, with less brain, would have. You don't 
get rid of attackers by lax gun control, all you do is put them in the 
hands of **both** attackers *and* idiots, both of which end up shooting 
innocent people. Yet, the argument always goes, "Obviously, if everyone 
has a gun, only the people shooting victims will get shot!" How the hell 
does a room full of 50 people pulling guns *tell* how the damn attacker 
is, when half of them where not even looking that direction when the 
first shot rang out? The argument is pure madness, no different, in 
principle, for the MAD doctrine of making sure you have as many nukes as 
someone else, so both of you are too scared to fire one. Its not the two 
mutually scared shitless fools with a closet full of guns, dressed like 
someone from the damn Mad Max film that is the problem, its the other 
nut that walks in with *one* gun, intent on hurting someone, who sets 
off the whole hornets nest.

I find it amazing that the government can see the *obvious* idiocy of 
letting someone like Iran get nukes, and figuring out that the best way 
to stop it is to not give *anyone* a reason to have them, including 
themselves (or at least most of them figured this out), but when its 
some bozo with a hand gun... More = better, unless they are someone that 
shouldn't have them, which they can't **prevent** as long as you can 
find someone willing to sell the damn things out of the back of a van, 
or someplace similar, for $20, in any city in the country, no questions 
asked, because the van owner *is* doing it illegally, and just hasn't 
been caught and jailed yet. Very similar to the "lets keep such and such 
country from getting nukes, or nuke materials, including the thousands 
we can't find, track, detect, or have a clue where they went to, when 
Russia feel.. Keep crazy people from getting guns **how** exactly? 
Enforce laws that already exist, but don't work, better *how* exactly? 
But don't dare make new laws, to try to close loopholes, because we 
gotta have those personal nukes, uh... guns, sorry..

Tell me, what would happen if the US wasn't a source of guns *for* 
crooks in the UK? After all, that is one of the arguments, "They get 
them here too, but the cops don't, so we are not safe!" Gee.. Where 
from? The gun nut capitol of the world, that is where. A place where 
anything short of something you can blow up a building with is A-OK to 
own, set up in your house, pointed at the front door, or carry on your 
person, as long as its not concealed in places where you can't conceal 
it, or you have a permit in places you need one, or you have the right 
to have one even without those, and it doesn't make you list was you 
walk, do to being designed to take out military tanks. And, I am sure 
that will be the next thing some idiot decides to make legal in Arizona, 
just as soon as a few years have passed, and they forget about some 
government official or other being shot in Arizona, or fudge the history 
of the event, to claim it was caused by not enough guns, and liberals...

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/26/2011 6:49 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/01/2011 1:36 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> And you know the really insane thing about it? Most of this crap is made
>> and shipped from places like China, Taiwan, and everyone *but* the US.
>> So you have con artists, or just nuts, selling this stuff, basically
>> untouchable, as long as they put the proper legerdemain on it, and its
>> not even benefiting anyone *here*, but some bozo in another country, who
>> is laughing their asses off at both the buyer, and the seller.
>
> Another way of looking at it is, someone at home is shipping it from
> China, Taiwan etc. to make a profit. But that is the free market for you.
>
My personal feeling is, if a company has more than 50% of its damn 
resources, product *or* employees in some other country, and its not 
*specifically* claiming to be a resaler (which would not have the same 
"rights" as the rest, including being able to muck with politics *at 
all*), it can't claim to be an "American company", no matter where their 
"head office" is located. If we used that logic on something like 
diplomats, foreign dignitaries could claim to be members of bloody 
congress, on the grounds that their embassy is on US land, and they do 
all their work from the embassy office, without ever going back to their 
own country for visits.

But, heh, that's just me...

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/26/2011 3:37 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:30:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>>> Sure, but there are also plenty of reasonable people who are religious
>>> as well.
>>>
>> There is nothing "reasonable" about religion.
>
> That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.  But I'll note that
> you're conflating "reasonable people" with "reasonable about religion"
> and the two are different.
>
>> than my own *personal* choice of wardrobe. Thankfully, sports fans get
>> no where *near* as unreasonable as "reasonable" religious people about
>> that sort of thing...
>
> Maybe you don't hang out with a crowd that does that.  Try hanging out
> with die-hard Utah Jazz fans and tell me there's a difference.  I find
> many of those hard-core sports fans to be much more obnoxious than people
> who practice a religion, or who claim to.
>
> You think I'm wrong, try wearing a Chicago Bulls jersey near the Energy
> Solutions Arena here in SLC on game day.  Or, for a real treat, try
> wearing a Mets jersey in Boston (or for that matter, to a Yankees game).
>
> Jim
Yes, well.. Those would be the sports "nuts". My point was, when push 
comes to shove, among religions, everyone has something they are *nuts* 
about. I would argue that, if your claim was consistent, you would be 
arguing that the "rational religious" have nothing at all in common with 
rabid sports fans, and that *I* am the one trying to equate the 
equivalent of evangelical (or some hardline type) sports fanatics with 
moderates in religion. Instead, you seem to be making the argument that, 
yes, Patrick is right, religious people do have some things they get 
seriously wacko about, so are exactly the same as the most rabid, and 
extreme sports fan.

My argument is, unlike the religious, you have sports fans that *won't* 
get offended by some specific thing you bring up, do, wear, etc., where 
the religious almost all have some *specific* thing that can and will 
set them off.

Note, I do not consider people that go to church for community reasons, 
but are skeptical of, agnostic about, or even atheist about, god, and 
religion, as "religious". That seems to represent a larger number than 
full blown agnostics/atheists in the US, of the people who claim to be 
religious, and is growing in number. In other countries, its just about 
everyone, except for a small minority, who bother to set foot in a 
church (excluding the ones that do so because it has been converted to a 
bed and breakfast).

In short, if you are claiming that rabid sports fans = "rational 
religious", I couldn't agree more. I, however, doubt it is what you 
meant. ;) lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 27/01/2011 1:59 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> My personal feeling is, if a company has more than 50% of its damn
> resources, product *or* employees in some other country, and its not
> *specifically* claiming to be a resaler (which would not have the same
> "rights" as the rest, including being able to muck with politics *at
> all*), it can't claim to be an "American company", no matter where their
> "head office" is located. If we used that logic on something like
> diplomats, foreign dignitaries could claim to be members of bloody
> congress, on the grounds that their embassy is on US land, and they do
> all their work from the embassy office, without ever going back to their
> own country for visits.
>

What is the big deal about being American?

> But, heh, that's just me...

It is indeed.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:11:06 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Yes, well.. Those would be the sports "nuts". My point was, when push
> comes to shove, among religions, everyone has something they are *nuts*
> about.

The vast majority of religious people (or people who self-identify as 
such) just go to church on Sunday and get on with their lives.  Of course 
you never hear about them, you only hear about the lunatics, because the 
normal people aren't interesting news.

It's been my experience that *most* people who are religious also won't 
get offended by something you say about their religion if you frame it in 
a way that isn't offensive.

If you walk into an LDS wardhouse and start screaming "you're all nuts, 
Jesus never came to the US and you're all LOOZERZ!@!!@!@!@", you'll get a 
strong reaction.

But at the same time, if you sit down with individuals and have a 
rational discussion with them, you may not change their minds, but you'll 
get a respectful discussion.

I know.  I've done it.  (The latter, not the former).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:29:44 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:24:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> 
>>> The only flaw in that is you can't go back and "undo" things that
>>> already happened.
>> 
>> Of course, and that's why I'm for gun control and tighter regulation of
>> guns in the US.  "Undo" is hard to do if not impossible when death is
>> involved.
> 
> The problem is that it works both ways. You're just arguing that
> defenders should die instead of attackers. If there's tight regulation
> on gun control, you're letting those who ignore those regulations kill
> those who obey them, without that same "undo" you're trying to control.

Well, yes.

But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by 
guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the US.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:36:14 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> We do this on a regular basis for "companies" that are even as small as
> a mom and pop outfit, where they have to be actually *selling* what they
> claim, and it has to work as advertised.

And if someone uses something like Tarot and gets an outcome that matches 
what they were aiming for, then it could be said to be "working as 
advertised".  Yes, you and I both know that correlation is not causation, 
but the fact of the matter is that someone calling in to Miss Cleo gets 
their fortune told that they're going to (say) win the lottery, and they 
win the lottery, hey, it worked as advertised.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by 
> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the US.

That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people saved by 
guns in there somewhere.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>> US.
> 
> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people saved
> by guns in there somewhere.

Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of 
intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be 
relevant statistics to include.

So not that it's the wrong statistic, but not the full set that should be 
included.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 27-1-2011 20:25, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
>>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>>> US.
>>
>> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people saved
>> by guns in there somewhere.
>
> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
> relevant statistics to include.

Any change of adding the number of homicides in countries with stricter 
gun-laws by manufactering cheap guns for their criminals?

> So not that it's the wrong statistic, but not the full set that should be
> included.
>
> Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:07:32 +0100, andrel wrote:

>> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
>> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
>> relevant statistics to include.
> 
> Any change of adding the number of homicides in countries with stricter
> gun-laws by manufactering cheap guns for their criminals?

Sure, why not?  I'm not compiling the statistics, but that'd be useful 
information too.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
>>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>>> US.
>> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people saved
>> by guns in there somewhere.
> 
> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of 
> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be 
> relevant statistics to include.

Sure.

> So not that it's the wrong statistic, but not the full set that should be 
> included.

Which would be ... wrong. ;-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:26:31 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally
>>>> by guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in
>>>> the US.
>>> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people
>>> saved by guns in there somewhere.
>> 
>> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
>> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
>> relevant statistics to include.
> 
> Sure.
> 
>> So not that it's the wrong statistic, but not the full set that should
>> be included.
> 
> Which would be ... wrong. ;-)

Well, it would be more properly said to be "incomplete". ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 1/27/2011 12:25 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
>>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>>> US.
>>
>> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people saved
>> by guns in there somewhere.
>
> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
> relevant statistics to include.
>
> So not that it's the wrong statistic, but not the full set that should be
> included.
>
> Jim
Course.. The number "saved" is fairly arbitrary. You have to assume that 
everyone "saved" couldn't have been without the gun, or even that some 
that died in the same situation would have died anyway, had no gun been 
involved. Precisely how do you quantify that, other than to flat out 
ignore the problem, and just proclaim, "A gun was there, so they where 
saved by one."?

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/27/2011 3:07 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 27-1-2011 20:25, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:57:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> But I haven't looked to see how many people are killed accidentally by
>>>> guns as compared to those who are intentionally killed by guns in the
>>>> US.
>>>
>>> That's the wrong statistic. It should include the number of people saved
>>> by guns in there somewhere.
>>
>> Well, I'd argue that the number of accidental homicides, the number of
>> intentional homicides, and the number of lives saved would all be
>> relevant statistics to include.
>
> Any change of adding the number of homicides in countries with stricter
> gun-laws by manufactering cheap guns for their criminals?
>
Hmm. You mean like NY, where enforcement and gun laws have increased, 
and oddly, the violent crime rate has dropped *faster* than any other 
part of the country? Like that sort of thing?

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message