The Battle Begins

[PearlWatson]

B) I do believe that the easy availability of government-backed loans has contributed significantly to education cost-growth.
D) Faculty salary hasn't grown at the rate of tuition. I suspect if tuition was capped through intervention or market forces you'd see significantly less campus construction/renovation, less brand-building expenses, and probably significantly less library cost.

Going back to the Socialized medicine discussion.
The same type of things will/have occurred when government gets involved in health care...or anything for that matter.

 

[PearlWatson]

I think you're exemplifying this at a very basic level, to make an argument that you think is better than it actually is.

It's like you think that by having a public education system where class sizes are 30 compared to 20, that the extra 10 kids will kill all 30.

If a teacher has 30 rather than 20 children to teach the kids in the larger class certainly get less of her personal attention (shared limited resource).

Also any of those 30 who had special/emergency medical conditions wouldn't fare well.

 

[One Brow]

So what. They committed this genocide because of their eugenic beliefs.

The Nazis committed genocide because of their irrational hatred. If eugenics played any role at all, it was as a conventient rationalization, and rationalizations are a dime a dozen.

That's all I have to say on that. Feel free to pipe in with the last word.

 

[One Brow]

D) Faculty salary hasn't grown at the rate of tuition. I suspect if tuition was capped through intervention or market forces you'd see significantly less campus construction/renovation, less brand-building expenses, and probably significantly less library cost.

Going back to the Socialized medicine discussion.
The same type of things will/have occurred when government gets involved in health care...or anything for that matter.

So, we'll have to trade off granting more universal access with the burden of having to pay for extra technologies? What a bleak picture you paint.

 

[Chad Feldheimer]

Trump/Palin 2012 ticket? Oh please let this happen just for the lulz

Welcome to When Worlds Collide, 2012 GOP edition.

Among the sights Sarah Palin will be hitting as her bus tour goes through New York will be Trump Tower, where she's scheduled to meet with the developer and reality TV show host who recently opted against a 2012 Republican for president, a source familiar with the planning told POLITICO.

It was unclear what the purposes of the meeting will be.

But it comes as Palin has been amping up her public appearances, including an East Coast "One Nation" bus tour that began in Washington D.C. and is currently headed north from Philadelphia.

A Palin spokesman couldn't immediately be reached about the Trump meeting.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55953.html#ixzz1O28KyUgZ

Come on Donald. It's not too late to come back.

 

[moevillini]

seems to me you're still assigning "blame" to the woman for having ended up pregnant.

She is a willing participant unless she is raped.

you make it seem as though pregnancy is something a woman is "guilty" of - - holy cow, you and I are on entirely different planets as far as that idea is concerned...

maybe if the state had the right to sterilize every man who impregnated a woman who did not wish to become pregnant (whatever birth control method they may have attempted to use, if any) than I could see allowing the state to have the right to demand a woman carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes

but I doubt that's going to happen...

might be a good science fiction type book however, I'll bet Margaret Atwood could make a good story out of it.

whose is the innocent life? I'd rather leave the value judgments out of the discussion of such an open ended question.

And I generally believe the woman's life takes precedence over the fetus or unborn child. I might modify that stance in specific situations however.

So whether a baby is innocent is a value judgement?

You admitted to fuzzy views after 16-18 weeks so I was seeing if you were willing to clarify. I guess not. Never mind, I was just curious.

honestly, I don't see this as a matter of innocence or guilt period...

and I don't consider a 12, 16 or 20 week fetus to be a human life exactly - - quite honestly, I'm not sure at what point in its development I'd consider it to be a human life with rights that would supersede the rights of the woman carrying it


(my statement you quoted about 16-18 weeks was a typo, I'd meant to say 26-28 weeks - - and at that point in a pregnancy, I'd consider additional restrictions on terminating a pregnancy. There are circumstances, such as if the mother's health is seriously endangered by continuing a pregnancy, that I would support a late-term abortion. So I can't really give a "one size fits all" answer because I think it still depends on specific circumstances.)

 

[PearlWatson]

you make it seem as though pregnancy is something a woman is "guilty" of - - holy cow, you and I are on entirely different planets as far as that idea is concerned...

maybe if the state had the right to sterilize every man who impregnated a woman who did not wish to become pregnant (whatever birth control method they may have attempted to use, if any) than I could see allowing the state to have the right to demand a woman carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes

It seems that "guilt" is your view of pregnancy. Obama expressed this viewpoint when he said his girls shouldn't be punished with a baby if they got pregnant. He acted like babies are some kind of punishment from Allah that has to be eliminated because of the inconvenience. I don't view babies or pregnancy that way.

I view the ability to create life as a sacred power/privilege. It is the ultimate irresponsibility to take this power lightly.

If a chick wants to have casual sex with guys she doesn't want to have children with then she should pick an infertile/sterilized guy or get sterilized herself. It ain't up to the state to protect a chick from the consequences of her choice.

honestly, I don't see this as a matter of innocence or guilt period...

and I don't consider a 12, 16 or 20 week fetus to be a human life exactly - - quite honestly, I'm not sure at what point in its development I'd consider it to be a human life with rights that would supersede the rights of the woman carrying it

(my statement you quoted about 16-18 weeks was a typo, I'd meant to say 26-28 weeks - - and at that point in a pregnancy, I'd consider additional restrictions on terminating a pregnancy. There are circumstances, such as if the mother's health is seriously endangered by continuing a pregnancy, that I would support a late-term abortion. So I can't really give a "one size fits all" answer because I think it still depends on specific circumstances.)

The least a chick can do is make up their bloody mind about killing their unborn child before it starts kicking in the womb.

A baby can breath on its own outside the womb @ around 19 weeks, so abortion at that point is simply infanticide. It has to come out one way or the other if there are issues with mom's health, so it should be allowed to come out in one piece at that point. (That is where the state has stepped in with partial birth abortion ban).

 

[moevillini]

I view the ability to create life as a sacred power/privilege. It is the ultimate irresponsibility to take this power lightly.

If a chick wants to have casual sex with guys she doesn't want to have children with then she should pick an infertile/sterilized guy or get sterilized herself. It ain't up to the state to protect a chick from the consequences of her choice....

...A baby can breath on its own outside the womb @ around 19 weeks, so abortion at that point is simply infanticide. It has to come out one way or the other if there are issues with mom's health, so it should be allowed to come out in one piece at that point. (That is where the state has stepped in with partial birth abortion ban).

if that's your view, then you've got it all backwards - - since abortion is legal, it is up to the man to either get a vasectomy or keep his ****** in his pants, if he doesn't want to risk impregnating a woman who might choose to terminate the pregnancy.

If the man can't abide the choice the woman might make, he has no business having a sexual relationship with her. Under present law, I don't see how anyone can argue that point.

 

[PearlWatson]

if that's your view, then you've got it all backwards - - since abortion is legal, it is up to the man to either get a vasectomy or keep his ****** in his pants, if he doesn't want to risk impregnating a woman who might choose to terminate the pregnancy.

If the man can't abide the choice the woman might make, he has no business having a sexual relationship with her. Under present law, I don't see how anyone can argue that point.

Backwards? I was responding to your phrasing, "maybe if the state had the right to sterilize every man who impregnated a woman who did not wish to become pregnant" You stated it was the woman who didn't want to be pregnant. If that is the case it is her responsibility to prevent that not the states.

No one is arguing that point, because guys like that love to have the free whore they knocked up kill the inconvenience so they can move on to the next one...they want it so bad they will even pay for it. Usually if a guy really wants to have kids with a woman he respects her enough to marry her.

 

[moevillini]

...You stated it was the woman who didn't want to be pregnant. If that is the case it is her responsibility to prevent that not the states

Exactly. And that's why the state should stay out of the discussion. That's been my point all along.

if that's your view, then you've got it all backwards - - since abortion is legal, it is up to the man to either get a vasectomy or keep his ****** in his pants, if he doesn't want to risk impregnating a woman who might choose to terminate the pregnancy.

If the man can't abide the choice the woman might make, he has no business having a sexual relationship with her. Under present law, I don't see how anyone can argue that point.

No one is arguing that point, because guys like that love to have the free whore they knocked up kill the inconvenience so they can move on to the next one...they want it so bad they will even pay for it. Usually if a guy really wants to have kids with a woman he respects her enough to marry her.

while I don't agree with your choice of vocabulary or some of your conclusions, at least we seem to have reached a level of agreement that a decision to terminate a pregnancy (up to a certain point) belongs with the woman and not the government.

 

[PearlWatson]

Exactly. And that's why the state should stay out of the discussion. That's been my point all along.
while I don't agree with your choice of vocabulary or some of your conclusions, at least we seem to have reached a level of agreement that a decision to terminate a pregnancy (up to a certain point) belongs with the woman and not the government.

Preventing a pregnancy and terminating a pregnancy are two different things. Once she is pregnant it no longer just a personal choice...it effects another life.

Like I said before I'm for the compromise between the two camps by allowing an elective early term abortion as long as she and the sperm donor are required to be sterilized in exchange.

 

[PearlWatson]

Life is full of tragedies, and sometimes presents us only with the opportunity to choose the tragedy we will endure.

Nice euphemistic eugenic motto.

 

[PearlWatson]

A predction requires a timeline and precision to tell whether it has definitiely occured or not, and an explanation requires a mechanism. Prophcies do not use either.

So your evolving self-serving definition of a scientific theory has gotten you in a bind.

Where is the man made global warming theorists precise timeline? Algore's dooms day prophecy?

What is the "theory of evolution" prediction? That humans will evolve into super humans?
What is this theory's precise timeline so we know whether it has definitely occurred or not?

 

[One Brow]

So your evolving self-serving definition of a scientific theory has gotten you in a bind.

It's really hard to tell if your apparent deep ignorance is feigned. Well done?

Where is the man made global warming theorists precise timeline?

The problem is not a lack of predicitons, but an over-abundance thereof. However, if you look at teh most carefully formulated predicitons regarding average temperatures, they are within the errors bars of recent temperatures.

Algore's dooms day prophecy?

Al Gore is a scientist?

What is the "theory of evolution" prediction? That humans will evolve into super humans?

Nope.

What is this theory's precise timeline so we know whether it has definitely occurred or not?

To which predictions of evolution do you refer?

 

[PearlWatson]

It's really hard to tell if your apparent deep ignorance is feigned. Well done?

Sucks to be in a bind of your own making, eh. LOL!

The problem is not a lack of predicitons, but an over-abundance thereof. However, if you look at teh most carefully formulated predicitons regarding average temperatures, they are within the errors bars of recent temperatures.

So the problem with calling the man made global warming theory science is that the scientists can't agree on which of many precise timelines to go with? What happened to consensus?

Are those "error bars" similar to the ones Paul Ehrlich falls into when he predicted a world wide famine and the end of entire nations by the end of the twentieth century?

Al Gore is a scientist?

He let the precise timeline slip.

Nope.

To which predictions of evolution do you refer?

Share one prediction and its precise timeline.
Might as well throw in the mechanisms that gets you there too.

 

[One Brow]

Sucks to be in a bind of your own making, eh. LOL!

Your possibly feigned deep ignorance is a bind of my making? Curious.

So the problem with calling the man made global warming theory science is that the scientists can't agree on which of many precise timelines to go with? What happened to consensus?

Well, if you can agree on exactly how many volcanos will erupt in the next 50 years (and what year within a year or two), the degree to which carbon emissions will be reduced by other sources of energy, the level of sunspot activity, etc., you can get a very accurate climate prediction 50 years in the future. The problem is no one knows when volcanos will erupt, how much energy will be coming from nuclear/solar/wind/geothermal/etc., what the sun will do, etc.

Are those "error bars" similar to the ones Paul Ehrlich falls into when he predicted a world wide famine and the end of entire nations by the end of the twentieth century?

No, these are considerably smaller, and once the various initial conditions have been factored in, have accurately predicted overall warming for the past ten years.

He let the precise timeline slip.

That makes Al Gore a scientist?

Share one prediction and its precise timeline.
Might as well throw in the mechanisms that gets you there too.

The develpment of resistance to antibiotics, via a variety of mechanisms (different for different antibiotics).

Although there was no timeline, Tiltaalik rosae was an expected discovery (they know where to look for it).

 

[PearlWatson]

Well, if you can agree on exactly how many volcanos will erupt in the next 50 years (and what year within a year or two), the degree to which carbon emissions will be reduced by other sources of energy, the level of sunspot activity, etc., you can get a very accurate climate prediction 50 years in the future. The problem is no one knows when volcanos will erupt, how much energy will be coming from nuclear/solar/wind/geothermal/etc., what the sun will do, etc.

Isn't that the point of many so called "deniers?" They say we can't know the degree to which all the variables contribute to Global temps so to pin warming all on man's contribution is all about political calculations (what Crichton calls consensus science) and not "precise timeline predictions with a specific mechanism."

No, these are considerably smaller, and once the various initial conditions have been factored in, have accurately predicted overall warming for the past ten years.

When did this prediction happen and what specific scientist predicted that it would warm over the past ten years and where is the support that it has and that it was cause by man?

That makes Al Gore a scientist?

He's the main spokesman for the man made global warming consensus "science." The point of this consensus "science" is to push economically harmful energy policies.

The develpment of resistance to antibiotics, via a variety of mechanisms (different for different antibiotics).

Although there was no timeline, Tiltaalik rosae was an expected discovery (they know where to look for it).

So a prediction of the "theory of evolution" is that bacteria will develop resistance to antibiotics?
There was no precise timeline "they" provided.
There is no specific mechanism.

So you provided 1/3 of your qualifications to be a scientific theory.

I'm not that impressed with this supposed "scientific" theory so far.

 

[babe]

re-igniting the torch. . . .

Exactly. And that's why the state should stay out of the discussion. That's been my point all along.




while I don't agree with your choice of vocabulary or some of your conclusions, at least we seem to have reached a level of agreement that a decision to terminate a pregnancy (up to a certain point) belongs with the woman and not the government.

A lot of folks could benefit from a thoughtful study of the time-line of any moral imperative, alongside the state/society that cultivated it. Most of us are just satisfied with some inane cliche that gets us out of the bind of actually thinking and drives our critics away.

Very early Israelite religion/culture was strongly anti-statist. There was no "King" just "judges" equipped with a plethora of sacrifices that could "atone" for sins and transgressions of their moral code. These "judges" and priests waited like our mods for complaints to be brought before them, and while they had moral imperatives calling for a "death sentence" or "banning", they definitely preferred to do the sacrifices. After all, the sacrifices were their primary means of support. . . . they ate the lambs after burning some small portion.

Unfortunately, we have few actual remnants of this ancient moral code and few references to how it was handled in practical terms. The Bible was written later by King Solomon's priests as Solomon's calvary raided the outlying Israelite population centers, wrecking their temples and altars and commanding all to bring their business to Jerusalem, along with hefty tax payments. Thus Solomon introduced "Statism" to the formerly agrarian idyll that was Israel.

Today's "conservatives" of the fundamentalist Christian culture/religious background fail to understand the superiority of the earlier, less centralized primitive Israel. And that our founding fathers, in upholding individual human rights including freedom of religion, were actually breaking new ground that early Christians never dared to postulate. Thus those who claim that the "Constitution" was inspired by God are actually saying that they have now realized that the Law of Moses and indeed the early Christian faith as well were never rightly understood as the "law" of any nation or rightly taken to be the actual antecedents of our legal system. . . . a tough sell, I know. Nobody has ever believed me for saying so.

However, a "libertarian" as I dream to be, when I went with my wife to a very early ultrasound evaluation of her pregnancy, and saw two little specks the size of a grain of rice with an evident "heartbeat", I was forever rescued from the delusion that this was not human life. The choice a woman makes as to whether she will protect this life is no less a fundamental decision at this stage of a pregnancy as it is when she is deciding whether to smother a bawling colicky babe six month old.

We could divide ourselves into warring camps and slay millions of one another in all stages of life if we just can't find a way to let actual freedom solve this issue. I would be happy to conduct the discussion with kindly entreaties on behalf of the unborn, pictures of little unborn humans and such, and medical investigations into the cognitive development of our unborn.

My wife, on the other hand, has devoted a lifetime to saving these human lives. We have very good results medically in saving a lot of premies at twenty weeks or so. The critical issue at this stage is not neurological nor cognitive, but simply the lung capacity. . . .

One observation I have in strong favor of the fundamentalist Christians in their movement to uphold the sanctity of human life are the testimonies of thousands of women who have turned to Christ after having abortions, who grieve for their decision while having compassion on others in the same straits they once were in. . . .

I don't think we need the government to make us do the right thing. I'm not sure about the murder of adults being equivalent. Even the old Bible did not equate the two but made a separate case for each. If the state cannot protect objectively demonstrable citizens in their life or property, there is no excuse for government at all.

 

[One Brow]

Isn't that the point of many so called "deniers?"

No, it isn't.

They say we can't know the degree to which all the variables contribute to Global temps ...

We have very good ideas of the degree to which almost all of the variables contribute to global temperatures. We don't know what values those variables will take. Those are two diferent things.

When did this prediction happen and what specific scientist predicted ...

Hansen, 1988.

... where is the support that it has and that it was cause by man?

CO2, CH4, etc. are driving factors in temperature.

He's the main spokesman for the man made global warming consensus "science."

No, Gore does not speak for scientists. He uses what he sees as thepredicitons of science. There is a difference.

The point of this consensus "science" is to push economically harmful energy policies.

More harmful than the economic harm from climate change?

So a prediction of the "theory of evolution" is that bacteria will develop resistance to antibiotics?
There was no precise timeline "they" provided.
There is no specific mechanism.

If you specify the antibiotic, you can predict the timeline closely and the one of two or three mechanisms.

I'm not that impressed with this supposed "scientific" theory so far.

You would not be impressed, regardless, from what I can tell.

 

[One Brow]

Even the old Bible did not equate the two but made a separate case for each. If the state cannot protect objectively demonstrable citizens in their life or property, there is no excuse for government at all.

In the Bible, life comes with breath.