Shinjula

I'm a little concerned about the opinion that because parents are paying rent and providing food they should have complete control of your life though. Every parent has the responsibility of paying for any child they brought into the world, its part of their choice to have a child and they have to stand by that no matter what. But theres also another responsibility that a parent has, and that is to prepare a child for life in the world. And one of the things each child has to learn is to make decisions for themselves. At sixteen, when the child is getting ready to fly the coup this is a very important thing for them to learn. Kids are always going to make mistakes and the sooner they come to do that the sooner they will learn how not to make mistakes. The nose piercing seems to me to be an ideal mistake to give to a child (assuming for a moment, the perspective of a parent who doesnt like the idea of a child having a piercing). It can be removed and it will heal up easily. It will probably affect their lives in a positive and negative manner, making some things easier and some more difficult. There is also a chance of it going wrong, but without life threatening consequences - the child at worse might have to live with a scar for the rest of their lives, so theres an aspect of permanent (but unlikely) consequences. It seems like an idea thing to give as a choice to a teen.

First off, ignore the ones saying 'ew gross', its a personal opinion and anyone arguing about its from a perspective of dislike when you obviously like the idea is missing the point. Its a tricky thing to choose, you have to balance the right for you to do whatever you like, given it doesnt affect anyone else, versus the rights of a parent to guide their child. Personally I wouldn't bother with the piercing, you're sixteen, you'll be out of your parents house within a few years and if you still want one at that point you can always get one then,, whereas if you upset your parents and it causes bad feelings, its a lot trickier to undo. Yes it's absolutely your right to get one, should you wish to do so. But why the hurry? What do you need the piercing for today that wont be the same in, say, two years time, when you move out?

I don't see why we should look at the benefits of our beliefs at all. Our actions are what we should be looking at when it comes to benefits - not the actual belief.I think the problem with your responses Zierro, is that you are being so defensive that you arent seeing that many of these questions are opportunities to explain and mostly your responses have been flippant answers, which is why people are turned off by them. For example you got asked... and all your response was, was You missed an excellent opportunity to explain a little about how you see yourself and your religion and how it works for you because you were too busy going for the quickest and simplest defence available. And this is the sort of stuff atheists see all the time. Religious people rarely show any enthusiasm (except in often the most innappropriate way with the evalangelicals) for their own religion so all athiests take away from these debates is hard headedness and quick flippancy. Why not go for it, and talk about how prayer makes you feel, what it does for you to have closeness to a higher power infusing your life. If you religion is worth anything to you (which I assume it must be) why not share some of that worth instead of constantly going for the cheap shots. Incidentally this also completely applies to the athiests as well, who never seem to talk about the freedoms they get from atheism, the feeling of security from not having to take things on faith or the freedom from heaven and hell.

I don't know too much about homosexuality, but isn't it debated whether homosexuality is choice or genetics? I'm a christian and I've been taught that homosexuality is considered evil. But if people are born that way, isn't that a little bit unfair? The only people who ever debate that it is a choice are those with a vested interest in it being so, i.e. those who believe homosexuality is wrong and use that to justify descrimination. Psychologists are pretty much across the board convinced its not a choice. Whether its something that happens during foetal development, whether its genetics or due to factors whilst growing up is still unknown. But there are very few psychologists who have gone on record as saying it's a choice. And most of those equally have vested interests in that being the case.

Um, Reb, Maths is something to be debated and a conclusion reached, its not there for you to insult people with, if we can't convince him with logic, then we are obviously not doing it correctly. Insults just make you look like you can't debate properly.

The problem comes because you are using Maths and Maths has rules and you are breaking them. The logical 'best model' is not one randomly picked, it is one which represents the data known. It is simply x/1-x where x >0 and x <1. You really can't assign random numbers to things just because they are unknown, that is not how algebra works. If you have a quadratic equation x^2 -1 = 0, you cant solve it to (x+1)(x-1)=0 and then just pick x=1 randomly as the answer, you have to say either x=1 or x=-1 because otherwise its an incomplete solution, the same goes for your probablilty, you can't just pick one of the answers and say its the answer, it's just not true.

Nothing? I'm sure that's not true. If something is possible, then that shows there is a probability of over 0% for it being true. That's saying something about the probability. Sure, but that is absolutely the only thing it says.

Hey there, first off, big My mother passed away last year, and as you can imagine thats the closest relationship with anyone I've ever had, so I had to deal with quite a lot of my grief. I also suffer a lot from depression so it wasn't exactly a picnic. Mostly my advice is not about how to feel or what to do with yourself. You'll know what's best yourself far better than I can guess, different people behave diferently during times of grief. My advice is just about how to cope with the people around you. First, if you can, take a moment away from your grief, just a minute or two, to think about those around you, and work out who you can trust to be helpful. Hopefullly there'll be someone at work with a bit of authority that can authorise breaks for you when you need em. Most jobs these days do understand that emotion is part of life and sometimes you will just go 'wobbly' and need a moment or two of time to yourself when dealing with grief. Once you've got yourself that, that should take a little of the pressure off, and hopefully youll feel freer to use that and let stuff out. Next is friends & family, these'll be a lot easier than work to deal with cos you know em, but often itll be confusing cos people generally dont deal well with other peoples grief, so you'll get some odd reactions from them at times. But do tell em as much as you feel able to, even if its only 'I should tell you I'm having a lot of grief over my grandmothers death but i dont feel able to tell you more'. Best piece of advice is, just dont give a flying [bleep] about what their reactions are and do whatever you feel is right even if its not what you would have thought you'd be like when grieving. The chances are they'll feel a bit uncomfortable around you and completely forgive you knowing what you're going through. Heres a few examples of reactions I got and suggested counter reactions... People stare blankly - this is cos they don't know what to say because they want to make things better but they can't If you want to talk then talk and enjoy the freedom to say whatever you like, if you dont want to talk then be quite around them if you can, if you want them to leave just say 'I think I'd like to be alone for a bit, would you mind?' People chatter inanely - they cant think what to say but dont like the silence Sometimes the babble is comforting, but if not they'll probably be fine if you ask em to leave. If you really dont want them to leave and cant cope with the babble you could try 'Would you mind if I talk for a bit?' or if youd prefer to listen 'So what do remember about grandma?' if they knew her, or 'So have you ever lost someone?' if they didnt Black humor - a good sign of someone really not able to cope with the depth of the emotion, its a defence reaction. If you can go with it can really help give some relief from the monotony of grief, if not you can always quiet say 'please dont' Hugs and cuddles - usually a sign someone is emotionally aware and happy to help. If you can deal then the cuddles and hugs should help, but some times they can feel uncomfortable or innapropriate if the person doesnt know you well enough, just shrug em off with a 'I'm sorry I'm not ready yet' Well, hopefully one of those might be of some use. I'm sorry I cant do anything more. Time will help, but the rest of us are pretty useless. Be well.

I have to say I do much prefer to say 'I choose to have faith in mankind, I choose to believe that we will eventually work out our differences and live in peace and I choose to believe in a supreme being who guides our steps towards this goal' I choose to believe, because it helps me in my life, it helps me cope with the dark times in the middle of the night or when my loved ones are ill and it helps a great deal when they die. I really don't understand people who say they believe in god and then act as though they know it to be true. I see it all the time in Christians, Muslims and almost anyone who belongs to an organised religion. Belief is not truth, there is a difference (otherwise why call it something else), people who believe obviously are aware of the difference, yet they behave as though belief was somehow the same as truth 'to them'. I don't get it.

That's probably not so bad, it really depends on why you felt uncomfortable. I've had experiences like that, where girls have touched me like that and I've felt uncomfortable but I'm sensitive enough to connect it to the fact that they were feeling some inapropriate stuff and projecting it, like, that I should be theirs, lack of acknowledgement of the fact that I'm not interested, possesiveness and/or thinking they might 'cure' me. Now none of that is heterophobic (opposite of homophobic) and I suspect yours isnt homophobic either, but people do have a tendancy to not be sensitive enough to work out the true cause of these feelings and lump it all under one banner of gays make me feel icky, and it can develop into homophobia, when really its just one gay guy a little too under the control of his hormones. Last thing to say on it, is that in case anyone is thinking of judging gays badly on this, you really should take a look at how heterosexual men treat women, the number of times I've seen men staring a womens breasts is really quite astonishing, I mean, even while they are talking to them. And women put up with this on an day to day basis. Which is why I have a lot of strong feministic sympathies.

I may as well put my oar in about the 50/50 argument, you cant assign a random number to an unknown probablilty simply because there are only two options, it simply doesnt produce useful answers. But I'm also not sure what argument was based on it needing to be 50/50, I suspect theres no different consequences were you to redo your argument with a probablility of x/1-x, and leave x as an unknown, (which I believe would be the only remotely correct way of representing the system).

But that happens to us homosexuals, I've had a fair number of female friends who've chatted me up. Now I dont react to them the same way straight men act to me when I chat them up. To me, its just a case of 'I'm sorry I don't DO girls', how would any of you men who are suggesting violence to any gay man who propositions you react if my response was the same to women chatting me up? Or even to a lesser stance, how would you feel if a girl you were chatting up responded with absolute disgust and revulsion? It's not really a very nice response. (Note to Zierro - I'm not actually necessarily including you in those sets, you haven't indicated your responce to the situations you described)

I think you guys might be getting too hung up on the numerical value your assigning to the probablity. I would think that the interesting part of the Schroedinger's Cat analogy is that just as the cat is both alive and dead at the same time, he is suggesting that God both exists and doesnt exist as the same time. That we live in a Universe where simultaneously there is both a god and no god and until the box is opened there is just a super position of both states. Further, that given there can't be proof of the non existence of god (at least I would suggest that that is the case) either one day god will prove it's exitence, or we will always continue to live in a universe with a 'virtual' god.

Its one thing to apply the anthropic principle to something like evolution, we know that other stars exist, but to theorise a multiverse with no evidence is surely as bad as theorising a god on no evidence?

Something to consider though - do you know precisely what those credible findings are? Do you also know what credible findings support all the other parts of science? If not you're simply believing what someone else says, and that's kinda blind faith too.

OK I've posted this several times in this thread to no avail (admittedly I havent grouped it all together like this before), I guess im still vainly hoping Sly will pay attention to it although I know he almost certainly wont. Reasons scientists believe homosexuality is not a choice. 1) Animals. Homosexual behaviour is seen in all known mamalian life. Even lower mammalian forms show homosexualality, these creatures have small enough brains that it is incredibly unlikely that they are capable of choice in the manner suggested. 2) Twin studies. Several studies on twin show a large correlation between homosexuality and genetics. 3) Success of 'curing' programs. Although many programs report success levels between 40% and 80%, when actually checked scientifically using te same methods in a controlled environment success rates of only 0.5% have been achieved. 4) Psychological analysis. General practice of therapy of homosexuals invariably brings no results when psychologists go looking for a 'choice'. 5) Straight people. Invariably straight people can never recount a point where they chose to be straight 6) Homosexuals. Invariably homosexuals can never recount a point when they chose to be straight ok? you wanted more than anecdotal evidence, well here it is.

Fadooda - but what your neglecting to tell us is what this message means? Ok sure lets assume for a moment that god did send a message to these people, why these ones? why the virgin mary? whats the point of it? After all he doesnt send messages that often so its probably something important, whats the meaning? And if you cant get a useful meaning out of his message doesnt that imply something, after all hes god he clearly capable of making himself understood. Since the message doesnt have any particular mean it really does imply this is not a message from god.

No I dont think I'm delusional, I'm aware there will be a great many problems to solve to get it working, but that doesnt mean its not something thats worth the time and effort. We already have managed to create a society where a lot of our impulses have been curbed, we no longer bash each other over the head and nick each others stuff, and it isnt entirely (or even for the most part) because of fear of reprisal. We are educated to a mind set where for most people that sort of thing is barely thinkable. It's enlightened self interest we know we can do far more in a stable society than we can without out it. If what you suggest were the only factor even a capitalist society wouldnt work. Its just a matter of pushing ourselves further, starting to do consciously what weve been doing unconsiously. I'm not sure your argument on a lack of intelligence works, the polyps still have the same basic needs which are causing power stuggles in humanity, the causes of the problem are still there. One could also say that our intelligence should give us more ability not less to co-operate. Its certainly debatable and definately not as cut and dried as you make it out to be. I definately agree that its not unnatural or artificial, in fact what I am suggesting is the unnatural and artifical idea, but unnatural and artifical idea have penetrated society - racism was perfectly natural, a response drawn from the dislike of the unknown and we have to a large extend overcome it (in areas such as work), admittedly the the fear of reprisals, but now that we have its also started to be the norm where fear of reprisal is no longer the driving force. No I dont, I put in the "I dont *really* mean this as harsh as it sounds" because it allows me to distance myself from the emotional stuff which my statements kinda imply incorrectly. Frankly you seem the only debater whos actually engaging with others on this thread (I've kinda decided to ignore most of the rest of this thread, its just people shouting at each other without really listening) Mind you, re my comment on homeless, that was a kind of pointer, maybe I should have been a bit more precise - improving the wealth overall of a captialist country doesnt seem to have raised the bottom rung of the wealth ladder, there are still people who are working who have severe problems in getting food on their plate. Neither has it reduced significantly the number of people who are on that lower rung. If a country as rich as America or the UK still haven't enough wealth such that the needs of working people arent met then the trickle down effect isnt working. My main point is that this is going to be a very tough and difficult thing to do, it will involve everyone to make sacrifice and sure I dont really think we are at all ready for it. But that doesnt mean its not worth doing, nor does it make it impossible. It is something to strive for, the rewards for doing it at too great not to consider it as a possibility.

OK so 53% of Canadian still think gay marriage is wrong, fine but now take a look at what has happened to that figure over the last ten years. Gay men and women have been steady campaigning over the last forty years, it started with the stonewall riots and it will continue. That stat that you mentioned has been steadily dropping along with all the other stats relating to inequal rights for homosexuals ever since we came out of the closet and started helping to change the way people thought of us. As for Canada being progressive, forty years of progression from a point of it being punishable with up to 14 years in prison in 1969 is still early days. More and more people are learning that we are no threat to society and through discussions such as this thread society moves towards a more enlighten stance. No one is forcing a viewpoint on anyone (after all, short of brainwashing how could we?), people are simply realising that there is simply no good reasons not to let us be who we want to be, its just freedom thats all. You chose to come to this thread, no one forced you, if the things here challenge how you think, even to the point of discomfort, then good, you can, of course always choose not to come back.

I could accept that if it werent the case that the richest nations on earth, like america and the uk didnt have so many homeless. Really for nations as rich as us getting rid of the homeless problem shou'd be a doddle.

That's exactly how the world works; The only core thing that matters is force and implementation of plans. Whoever is the smartest and strongest has always gotten advantages. I don't think it's "fair". It's just what reality is; Nothing will ever change that. Even if political parties & formal centralized power ceased to be, whoever had access to the most weapons and persuaded the most people to fight for him would get a bigger slice of the pie than you or me. What's "fair" is only hypothetical semantics and has nothing to do with objective reality.. Is it fair that wolfs tear apart sheep? Is it fair bears kill small fish, or that lions get to intimidate & eat every other animal in the jungle? Every structure has to have bottom feeders and something at the top. Absolute equality is an inexistent feature in nature. Then I'm sorry but I want absolutely nothing to do with you as a person. I dont *really* mean this as harsh as it sounds, but that sort of thing is completely antithetical to how I want to live my life and the sort of country I want to live in. People who make blanket judgements about what 'reality' is are almost always mistaken as there is no 'consensus reality' other than that which we make ourselves, and if thats the sort of world you wish to live in then i'm quite happy living elsewhere. We are conscious beings and we can chose to strive together to build the sort of world we want, or we can languish in power trips and egoism. We do not have to accept what is, we have choice. As for the entirely of nature being against it thats a very shallow view of the complexity of nature, there are in fact many many forms of life who work precisely in an opposite way to that, coral in the great barrier reef works in very communistic way, the cells in your own body also work through co-operation, if they didnt you couldnt exist. Life is more complex than you can imagine and no blanket statements will ever be appropriate. On the other hand, thanks for mentioning biology cos we really should bring that into the debate, since "Communism doesnt work" comes up so frequently (it seems we have to repeatedly argue it on every other page) and the great barrier reef is an ideal example of millions upon billions of organisms operating under communistic principles (each to its need, each to its ability) for generation after generation, estimates of its age seem to be about 500,000 years, not bad operating on a system which supposedly "doesnt work"

There's a major problem with people seeing iconography in stuff. We know that major parts of our brains are devoted to pattern recognition and that those parts are essentially over active particularly when it comes to seeing faces and people. That's why its so easy to see faces in clouds. There are whole hosts of tricks one can play on ones vision. Take for example the Mother Teresa Bun But you gotta think a little deeper about it, sure it really does look like Mother Teresa, but why would God be sending pictures on Mother Teresa to us, using the medium of BUNS??? Is he saying in his infinite wisdom that buns are holy? That we must make more bread? What does this message mean? And when you ask those questions nothing comes out? There is no message he's sending us that could possibly make sense, to all accounts the bun maker wasn't a particularly holy man, certainly not compared with other notably holy men. Its just a bun. That happens to look like a person.

I'm sorry, adding qualifiers afterwards changes the nature of what you want answering, I'm not prescient. Are there any other qualifers you wish to add? I really dont get how you think this affects the argument though, given I'm wanting to create a utopian ideal communistic society, why would I want anyone ther who doesnt want to be there? Further more even if it is by choice thats still a communist example not involving gulags. Even furthermore what about the many many tribal societies I mentioned?

Lol, great arguing technique, perhaps since I'm left wing youd like to compare me to hitler as as well? I'm sorry but Gulags are not an inherent part of communism Why has every communist state, EVER had them in some shape or form then? They havent, you're only looking at a certain type of communist police state and assuming thats what constitutes communism. Most modern marriages are a form of communism, and your unlikely to find a gulag anywhere in sight, most tribal societies are communistic in nature and equally lacking in gulags. If your looking for a reason why no large countries are pure communist its because it requires more technology and wealth than most countries are capable of, you have to have complete mass communication systems to make a true communism work and we are only just getting to the state where we have voting machines and they are still at a primitive and untrusted state. But smaller communisms are visible all around the world in all sorts of place and without a gulag in sight.

Lol, great arguing technique, perhaps since I'm left wing youd like to compare me to hitler as as well? I'm sorry but Gulags are not an inherent part of communism