Syntho-sis

 

We're looking for the reasons behind people's opinion. This isn't a valid reason behind anyone's opinion, unless you suggest people should be conformists and never disagree with the majority.

 

~moo

Not what I suggested. I was simply pointing out how the current system operates and attempting to resolve what action would be necessary for such a law to survive. I was also attempting to explain why such a law is impeded on the basis of majority rule.

Another way to safeguard against tyranny of the majority, it is argued, is to guarantee certain rights. Who gets to vote and a definition of inalienable rights which cannot be transgressed by a majority, can be decided beforehand as a separate act[5], by charter or constitution.

Thus a change would need to be made in the constitution in order to guarantee SS couples right to marry because there currently is not a guarantee of that right. Legislation on this issue is left to the state's governing bodies.

The only aspect where this is relevant is whether or not anyone should actively come out against a law. Saying that a law exists does NOT mean that people immediately must not disagree with it, and we are searching for the reasons why the would disagree or agree with such law.

It may be relevant to have secular reasons to appeal laws in a scientific community, but that is not how legislation in this country operates.

Bills can find their way into obscurity simply by a group of individuals deciding they are not comfortable with the proposal.

If there was any "relevant, secular" reason behind the impairment of such a law's creation so far, then we would be able to talk about that reason.

But there isn't one.

It is simply... Majority will..Which is based, more oft than not, on religious beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority#Public_Choice_Theory

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

The question, again:

Is there a relevant, secular, and rational reason to disallow same sex marriage?

 

You're headed into structure of enforcement of a decision to prevent or allow same sex marriages. An interesting topic itself, certainly, but it doesn't seem to me to address the question.

 

I refute some arguments with "equitable treatment under law", as equity of treatment under the law is an established idea as an historical precedent, as opposed to being part of government or legal structure. To put it another way: Refusing equal treatment of citizens under the law is established as anathema to freedom - no excuse to be inequitable can be considered relevant or rational if it does not fit accepted principles. If you start talking about changing those basic principles, which I admit can happen, you are also moving the goalposts for answering the question.

No, but it is a foundational concept to be considered when answering the question.

It is a fundamental center piece our honorable officials in legislation would need to consider if enacting an amendment which would allow for all SS couples to receive proper recognition (within all states).

It's one of the major impediments of SSM as of right now. With the real hedge being the beliefs of a majority of Americans that SS couples should not be allowed to marry (thus influencing all three branches of government to enact and enforce certain laws).

On to other topics then...Boy didn't I go out on a limb? haha

No, the Full Faith and Credit clause means that all states should have to honor a marriage from another state. I mean, IANACL, but that'd be my interpretation.

Between 1996 and 2004, 39 states passed their own laws and constitutional amendments, sometimes called "mini DOMAs," which define marriage as consisting solely of opposite-sex couples. As well, most of these "mini DOMAs" explicitly prohibit the state from honoring same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries. Conversely, several states have legalized same-sex marriage, either legislatively or by state supreme court judgment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause#Same-sex_marriage

It's the constitutionality of equity that's off topic. It's nitpicking a side issue. (red herring)

 

That intervention on behalf of minorities has happened is a matter of historical fact (example: Supreme Court of the United states; Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, KS). This precedence is entirely relevant.

 

If you don't understand how the three major branches operate, feel free to read up.

Let me quote you again..

The majority has been told to go stuff it on many occasions, with minorities protected from the tyranny of the majority by way of the republic's representative branch, justice branch and even the executive branch on one occasion.

It isn't, but so what? This is the natural function of the three major branches: Precedent, law, and executive power.

That intervention on behalf of minorities has happened is a matter of historical fact (example: Supreme Court of the United states; Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, KS). This precedence is entirely relevant.

That last claim is totally irrelevant to the constitution and the statement made:

minorities protected from the tyranny of the majority by way of the republic's representative branch, justice branch and even the executive branch on one occasion.

Wouldn't a change in the constitution be required in order for homosexual couples to be allowed to marry? (To enforce in all states that is)

Would that change be based off of protection of minorities or will of majority?

The issue is irrelevant to the decision made when it is impeded by the majority vote. To the exclusion of vetoes.

Point being, that a piece of legislation requires at least some support from the majority in order to exist for any significant amount of time (Let's say ten years.)

It may be passed to begin with, but if the people decide they do not like a specific law they can vote in new representatives and members of congress. They can then petition the law, and have it reversed.

This also gets into the issue of states rights.

This is a function of argument, you can't call out every supposed red herring if you are not prepared to back up your statements with reliable evidence.

Nothing about our legislation is absolute...

It isn't, but so what? This is the natural function of the three major branches: Precedent, law, and executive power.

Again, this is puttering off the topic.

Hmmm...Then why use it as a claim to refute another claim?

I believe that is a fallacy (can't pin the exact one down.)

Your own claims about how the three major branches operate..What evidence do you have to support those claims?

There is a vast difference between having a reason to do something, and making use of the mechanisms in place to enforce the decisions based on that reason.

 

However, even is we were to fall for the equivocation, it has already been established that this particular republic requires equal treatment under the law. The majority has been told to go stuff it on many occasions, with minorities protected from the tyranny of the majority by way of the republic's representative branch, justice branch and even the executive branch on one occasion.

Where is that stated in the Constitution?

I believe Snail had a thread on something like this a while ago.

 

Yes, he did!

Sweet! Thanks much

First of all, I'd like to say that, as someone who grew up on a farm, we small farmers NEVER treat our animals so horribly. Our cattle probably did have a much better life than a lot of the people in the world. They always had food and water and as much as they could want. They had good shelter and were treated incredibly well. This goes for EVERY small farm that I have ever visited..

I myself have lived on farms growing up, and have visited many small farms. I've witnessed firsthand how small farmers actually treat their animals. In the eyes of most farmers, the animal is money, and you treat your money well.

The website claims on free range

And yes, chickens are horribly packed in those places...I've seen it myself. That's why I only try and eat "free-range chicken" because, whether they feel pain or not, it is still wrong to treat a living animal so horribly.

 

But they DON'T "feed antiobiotics to promote unnatural growth". What they do (at least in the feedlots for cattle) is put a growth horomone in tabular form in the cow's ear. Antibiotics are only used when necessary, as they are ungodly expensive.

And the cattle are supposed to be stunned before they are slaughtered. How many are, I cannot say. But to anyone that has seen "No Country for Old Men" the weapon Javier Bardem uses is how they are supposed to be killed. It's called a captive-bolt pistol.

 

And I plain refuse to eat veal because of what it is.

 

Animals are never supposed to be treated as cruelly as those videos show, though sadly, I have seen it myself at the stockyards I went to with my father.

Animals should not be treated cruelly, but the depictions on the website and video far exaggerate what actually goes on.

For example: There is one seen in which two pigs hanging on some sort of apparatus have there throats slit I believe. It is made to appear that they are suffering because they are squirming as if in lots of pain. In actuality, most animals in this state are not experiencing pain at all, this is simply a reflexive response. The spinal cord is still active in this state, and is sending neurochemical impulses at a high rate. Thus you have the squirming.

Which does not necessarily mean pain.

It depends on what kind of meat. Chickens, for example, lack a neocortex and are thus unable to suffer in any appreciable way.

Well the makers of the video have clumped all the varying species that are involved in meat production into the all encompassing term of "animals."

and feel that...

Like us, chickens form friendships and strong family ties. They love their young and mourn the loss of loved ones.

Source: http://www.chooseveg.com/chickens-turkeys.asp

Well apparently chickens are capable of emotions as well.

This is why I do not take vegetarians and vegans seriously when it comes to this topic.

Laser pointers are cheap, but you can do it with even less sophisticated sources.

Well since it's the most reasonable thing at the moment, that's what I'll have to go with. (Home-built HeNe will have to wait)

I have a simple laser pointer and access to tools and what not...

Where do I go from there?

http://www.chooseveg.com/animal-cruelty.asp?gclid=CIrS89aL-ZwCFU8M2godJgmJaQ

Now before I present my argument on this, I want you to watch this video.

Do you agree with what the creators have intended to claim?

Yay or Nay? And why?

Merged post follows:

Since there seems to be no early takers I will propose my case against the agenda behind the video:

Which is encouragement of people to practice vegetarianism solely on the basis that cruelty and pain are experienced by the animals used for meat production. And that somehow eating meat is morally wrong. There was also a statement on the website that suggested that compassionate people choose not to eat meat.

I see this as a fallacy in that the only alternative presented in the video and on the website to consumption of meat is vegetarianism. This is a false Dichotomy.

I'm assuming there are quite a few people on here who disagree with my perspective.

For those of you who do disagree I challenge you. If you are able to present a reasonable amount of evidence that meat production is a cruel and sinister affair I will stop eating meat immediately.

This is one topic in which I am well-versed, so it will be a challenge indeed.

Any takers?

Merged post follows:

Every time we eat, we are making a powerful choice that has profound consequences on the lives of animals. At each meal, we make a decision between supporting cruelty or living compassionately.

Suggestion of non-compassion on the consumer's part. A statement which is not supported by evidence.

Also a false dichotomy.

And I was pointing out that the overwhelming majority of individuals don't allow their self-interest to go unbridled, but instead temper their interests to fit within the social contract.

There was somewhat of a misunderstanding then. In that case I agree with your statements.

Well, sure. There would not be 100% overlap of the circles in a Venn diagram (where one circle = "socialism" and the other circle = "self-interest"), but the overlap itself most certainly exists, hence refuting the central premise underlying waitforufo's assertion. The accuracy of his assertion is contingent upon the circles being completely separate and independent from one another.

Yes I definitely agree that there exists some correlation between the two.

Merged post follows:

A prison system is in your best interest if you adhere to the social contract. It ceases to be in your self-interest if you eschew societal rules. Perhaps eschewing those rules is in your best interest, but as you have empathy you recognize that your rights end where another man's nose begins. Punching him would be a bad idea.

Well it was an example in that most people have no interest in going to prison. Most people in fact will rationalize why they should be excluded from punishment of that form.

Then again most people will agree that some form of punishment for individuals is necessary to maintain the rule of law.

I was using self-interest in the form of interested in one's self i.e. placing your own desires above those of everyone else.

The fact that we often act in our own self-interest does not preclude the ability to satisfy our own self-interests via socialistic means. In short, self-interests and socialistic systems are not mutually exclusive.

But there obviously exists some exclusion between the two, right? Not every action spawned out of a socialistic system is for the self-interest of the people. Sometimes whats good for us (or the entire community) is not in our self-interest.

Prison system for example.

Perhaps not DNA per se, but the bases are found naturally in meteorites. See, e.g., V.A. Basiuk et al., Adv Space Res (1999) 24:505-14. The study of how DNA and RNA arose crops up in abiogenesis (and surfaces periodically in this forum as well).

What Amino acids from outer space? Can amino acids form naturally in space?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

This indicates that as long as the right ingredients and correct stimulation are involved, amino acids can easily form.

If that's so, how come we don't witness abiogenesis everyday? I mean if the correct chemicals are involved, and the correct stimulation....

Quick question:

I was wondering. If the couple decides to have children. Say they adopted, and the child's previous family had be a heterosexual one. Is there any evidence that the psychological health of the children may be affected? Even if the child was at a young age?

Has any studies been done in that regard?

Thanks

is what I consider defending my statements when I believe them to be correct. Why should I admit to errors I did not commit. By the way pathogens include any disease producing organism including:bacteria,fungi,viruses,certain worms,prions, and probably some others I can`t think of at the moment .Virulence is the relative ablity of a microbe to cause disease. Bacteria are but one of numerous pathogens. Virulence had nothing to do with the question asked. And not all bacteria are pathogens. The vast majority of bacteria are not pathogens. You never acknowledged any of your mistakes in your argument to me. And why you keep on insisting somehow you proved me wrong and that I should treat you as if you are some sort of authority on anything is preposterous. I am showing the same lack of respect you have consistanly shown for me. ...Dr.Syntax

I'm sorry for the lack of respect I have shown thus far.

Wow that is depressing.

Our own library system, voted the best in the country, had to cut back on operating hours. A few months ago they were pretty much begging for donations, saying that it might be possible that they would have to close branches..It's still possible.

I wonder what they would do with all those books.

 

There's the amusing Demarchy, in which randomly selected people get put in charge. Hm, what could possibly go wrong?

I kinda like this one...Sortav like a lottery government. I wonder if any sci-fi books have been written on this premise.

Interesting nonetheless.

I am using your response to CharonY to show you how you do not stick with the original question asked. That is the question I was answering and none of the other ones created by others as the thread progressed. The question I was responding to is:" what are the characteristics of a bacteria that make it contagious". That is it,nothing else. Nothing about pathogens or virulence. I consider the different ways bacteria spreads about to be:" what are the characteristics of a bacteria that is contagious ? "

How is that in the least relevant to helping the OP understand the question and then help them to come up with a correct answer? If you had read the rules for posting in the homework section you would know that you shouldn't be providing direct answers anyway!

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23802

I don`t care what it is I say: there seems to me to be a group of people in this forum determined to pick it apart anyway they can find or create to do so. I guess that is the way it is. Whatever, ...Dr.Syntax

And it seems to me that you are simply being antagonistic because your answer were refuted by numerous posters. Instead of taking it in stride you felt as if you were being personally attacked and are now associating snobbery with anyone who does not accept ignorance that is proclaimed as fact.

I'll admit that I have made more than my share of mistakes on the forum. Apart of being able to 'survive' on here though, is knowing when a mistake is being made on my part, and then attempting to correct it and learn more about what I am ignorant in.

My own answer may have been non-relevant to the question (I wrote it in haste without really understanding the question itself.) But Dr.Syntax, that does not, in and of itself validate your own answer.

Now can we please stop arguing and instead discuss the question.

Cheers

I'm interested in performing this experiment. How much time and money would I need to invest in this? I'm trying to learn as much as I can about the original experiment.

What equipment did Thomas Young originally use?

Any resources on this would be appreciated.

Cheers

s-s

Merged post follows:

As part of this I will most likely build a Helium-neon laser... I found one extensive website. The info is a little overwhelming though.

http://www.repairfaq.org/

The HeNe construction is more for amusement purposes than an actual inability to come into the possession of a laser of this type. They are relatively inexpensive and easy to find.

Well, again, contagious and pathogenic are two different aspects. Almost all bacteria (except extreme specialists) can spread to a given extent, and are therefore by definitionem contagious. Yet they do not necessarily cause harm. If your hand is sterile and you touch any surface you will get bacteria on it. There, transmittance happened. You won't usually get sick, though. The bacteria just has to be able to grow on the given surface (in this case, skin).

And also again, there is hardly anything that can be considered a pathogenicity factor that is shared by all pathogens (if we want to limit it to diseases). The routes of infection and persistence that bacteria employ are simply too varied.

I don't know why I didn't think about that. I was thinking more along the lines of the question referring to pathogenicity. Because like you said, almost all bacteria can spread to a given extent, but not all cause harm. Does that totally exclude the virulence factors I cited for pathogens?

I`ve listened plenty. There are times someone pointed out an error in what I wrote and I agreed and acknowledged the error. This is not one of those times. No use of an anology or attempts to complicate a simple but accurate answer to a simple quetion is going to change that. ...ds

Well the problem then is in your lack of acknowledgment of the error. That in and of itself is not the intelligent way to approach correction.

I can assure you that your answer to:

"Q: What are the characteristics of a bacteria that is contagious?"

Is completely wrong. The question deals with the attributes that distinguish contagious bacteria from ones that have attributes that do not make them contagious

Pathogenic bacteria have certain characteristics that they need, and use, to cause disease. These so-called virulence factors have specific functions in the successive steps that result in an infection. An infection can be seen as a miniature battle between bacteria and host, the first trying to remain present, and to feed and multiply, while the host is trying to prevent this. The resulting infection is a process with three possible outcomes: the host wins and the bacteria are removed (possibly with the help of medication) so that the host can recover; the bacteria win the ultimate battle and kill their host (sad but true: bacterial infections are a major cause of death especially for children and elderly people); or an equilibrium is reached in which host and bacteria live involuntarily together and damage is minimized.

http://www.bacteriamuseum.org/cms/Pathogenic-Bacteria/bacterial-pathogenicity.html

See link for list of virulence factors.

I am definitely open minded to hearing of reasons that might show they stem from a rational explanation about gay marriage; so far, I've heard none, but worse than that, it seems that even those who argue "just about the definition of the word" seem to neglect the issue of practical equality by themselves.

~moo

I have nothing against homosexuals and I do consider them equals. If you assumed that I thought otherwise that is. I agree with most everything that has been put forth in support so far.

What I think human experience has shown us is that none of the unilateral theories, even with all of their philosophical underpinnings, actually works in their purest forms. The collection of these forms, ranging from fascism to socialism to capitalism, has gotten us pretty far, but none of them is really up to the challenges of modern technological life. Instant communications, the realization that we're all connected in our actions, the immediacy of information, these things pretty effectively undermine ALL of the unilateral forms.

 

Which leaves us with "hybrids", like our current system. Fine-tuning and perhaps even overhauling at some point in the future, but never throwing it back into one of those old, historic forms. In my opinion.

Well yes, we have been identifying the better of concepts for the last 400 years or so, and applying them as needed. I think the term "hybrid" is a good description of the system we now enjoy. It does present some shortcomings though (as seen by economic turmoil).

I think the best we can do is learn from nature and adapt to our environment. Quit holding on to ancient traditions and apply what we know will work in the long-run.

I think it's safe to say that socialism and capitalism both present tremendous benefits if applied in the correct situation. And applied by the correct people

Merged post follows:

Why is that?

 

 

Seriously, though. Socialism is terrible. We need to get rid of the fire departments, police, government maintained roadways, public libraries, and public school. Horrible thing, that socialism.

I will admit that the first section was somewhat humorous. The reason I hope that is not your argument against the free-market system is because:

For one it is a youtube video of two morons throwing fireworks out the back window of a moving bus.

Also because it did not provide any information or references to the statements that were being made by the individuals.

But mostly for the latter reason.