divagreen

That's quite possible. Perhaps someone should perform a study in which attractive women go to pubs, order some drinks, and stash away samples of the drinks in vials before drinking, to detect if they've been spiked. Do it for long enough and you might get some hits.

I think that you are providing a gender bias research base by leaving out the attractive men.

I also think that as long as vials are being collected, one might as well test for hygiene to find out whether or not the bartenders are actually cleaning the glassware rather than just dunking them in water like it looks like they are doing.

You asked what people thought of this woman being executed based on her IQ. I stated my opinion. The fact that the two actual murderers didn't receive the death penalty has no bearing on the fact that I believe she should be executed and that she knows right from wrong.

 

For the record, I think all three should be killed. Those two got off lightly because of a plea bargain. But that's not what you were asking.

Thank you for opining!

I believe my original question was open ended..."what do you guys think?"

Her alleged crime was for masterminding...with a 72 IQ...do you not see the discrepancy with this allegation? 72 is 2 points above mental retardation and a handicap.

I think that the other two perpetrators' sentencing holds relevance in order to keep perspective as to why she was sentenced to a death penalty in the first place.

I think that the death penalty was misappropriated in this situation.

This puts another question in my mind.

 

If so many people report experiences with spiked drinks, why have researchers had such a hard time finding evidence of it? For example, The Telegraph article I link above shows that of 97 people admitted to hospitals because of alleged drink-spiking, not a single one had any evidence of such drugs in their bloodstream.

 

What makes people think they've had spiked drinks when they haven't -- or what makes the drugs not show up in tests?

I think the reason it does not always show up in tests is because it has something to do with the half-life of the drug in question (pharmacology was an awfully long time ago). I think that the drug will only test positive for a certain amount of time, mostly when the victim is unconscious, hence, it's effectiveness and lack of detection.

I am sure someone who has more knowledge about chemistry and/or pharmacology can elaborate.

If theory of evolution is true, the organs from apes can be transplanted to humans.

Organs don't even transplant 100% successfully between humans (blood type plays a big factor, as well as how many antigens a person may have in their blood) so I am not sure why the theory of evolution needs to rest on organs from apes being successfully transplanted to humans.

Also, Poe's Law doesn't really apply because the guy has years of half-hour shows, not just some single 100-1000 character post...

 

It's pretty clear that he goes out of his way to make his positions look silly.

Poe's law does not apply to Steve Colbert? Seriously? Try the first one.

A list of examples for Poe's Law.

And there is this:

Investigators at The Ohio State University School of Communication found evidence supporting Poe's Law in a study published in 2009.[5] They measured the relative political conservatism and liberalism of 332 individuals. The study participants then viewed clips from The Colbert Report, a television show that is a parody of conservative news commentary shows such as The O'Reilly Factor and broadcast on the Comedy Central cable network. The researchers found that the relatively conservative people in their study reported that the star of the show, Stephen Colbert, was actually showing disregard for liberals and covertly expressing his true conservative attitude about the matter at hand. Liberals viewing the show tended to view the work as a sincere parody and not view Mr. Colbert as presenting his true political views. Curiously, the liberal and conservative viewers in the study found Mr. Colbert similarly humorous (a non-statistically significant difference). While not a direct or intentional test of Poe's Law, the results fit well with the predictions it makes.

With much respect, I was responding to Lemur's inquiry as to whether or not there was a respectful engagement of dialogue. By pointing out that it is a Poe, I was trying to,

A) let Lemur or any other poster know that Stephen Colbert, was not in fact, a right wing conservative

and

B) try to direct as to why he would take such a position in the first place

I heard this woman speak. She was not mentally slow in a way that would make her unable to know right from wrong. She knew she was helping to murder people. She has no respect for life and is therefore not deserving of life.

While the two people who actually performed the crime received life sentences?

One of the killers actually confessed that they had manipulated the woman into an agreement of the crime...why is the death penalty applied in this case only unilateral?

Interesting.

 

It'd be funny if we found out some day that Stephen Colbert is a staunch conservative. But then... how would we tell?

By his actions I surmise.

And I am not trying to imply that Stephen Colbert is "a deep down inside" staunch conservative...he is playing an over the top conservative in order to parody the current political climate of the extreme right's style of engagement.

I think it is brilliant.

So are they giving serious consideration to the opposing viewpoint and engaging it constructively then?

Stephen Colbert is playing a Poe.

Another article

As the date of her execution drew near, Lewis' lawyers argued that the courts had ignored critical evidence, including an exam that showed she was borderline mentally challenged, and a confession by one of the other men convicted in the murders that he had manipulated her to go along with the crime.

So how was she the "mastermind"?

Deborah Denno, a professor at Fordham Law School and one of the nation's leading death penalty experts, said Lewis' role in the slayings was undeniable but the death penalty was "disproportionate" compared to the sentences her co-conspirators received.

 

"Her two male co-conspirators, who actually carried out the murders, got life sentences, Denno told the Daily News.

Hmmm...

I came across this article, and found it disturbing...

Article

Anybody with an IQ below 70 may not be executed, but this woman with an IQ of 72 was...in fact she was the alleged "mastermind" behind the crime .

What do you guys think?

Well, if you listen to what he said last year in context of the tax cuts to be included in the stimulus, he's ALSO against extension of the cuts now, and would ALSO be in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

 

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a78e69a4-e30d-11dd-a5cf-0000779fd2ac.html

 

 

 

 

In 2007, Stiglitz also wrote about the Bush tax cuts here.

I did listen and don't you find it interesting that someone who first started off as the Reaganonmics love child for global economic order turned into such a pain in the arse economist?

I did not catch the first article, but the second one was pretty good, thank you.

It is hard to articulate what I mean without sounding like an "either or" situation.

 

I sort of find it strange to be mandating scrubbers on smoke stacks 200 miles away while diesel rigs belch clouds of black smoke at every gear change. The distant smoke stacks have an effect, yes, but the semis are closer and much more immediate to the populations health. That's what I mean by misdirection.

 

It's like when a river flows through a number of States (or Shires in our case.) Each authority is far most vocal about water quality where the river comes in than they are about water quality when it leaves.

 

If NC had pure and pristine air, then they can complain all they want because that makes sense. But complaining about smokestacks 200 miles away while your cities are full of black smoke belching trucks strikes me as a bit silly.

 

I find most govs would use this type of thing to show that they are "doing something" (by making someone else do something) while at the same time hiding the fact that they are doing very little themselves. Smoke and mirrors.

 

Does that make it a bit clearer?

Pfft.

NC made it illegal to smoke in most public places in January 2010. RJ Reynolds has been downsized and demoralized due to the popular bent of environmental sympathies. (Think of the local tobacco farmers as far as an inquiry into the local economy and the impact of such.) So no more economic smokescreens, so to speak, haha.

Big trucks? Is that your argument? There are emissions control on vehicles and factories, however an allowance seems to be made for the grandfathering clause, which is a biggey, but that has been in use less and less, as systemic maintenance requires further renovation.

Kind of what they are doing on the borders...

This site has gone to shit.

Oh hush, even though I am a lurker and mostly just read the posts on this site, I still enjoy it immensely. Don't be so grumpy.

/end personal reply

I wonder what Joseph Stiglitz thinks about the current tax cut debate.

Wondering if anybody knows who he is and where a lot of this comes from...

How does raising taxes create jobs?

I imagine that the increase in the field of accounting and tax auditing must be consistently exponential.

Though your questions are well supported, they are in fact very near sighted. Each and every one of these questions has a very simplistic answer, the answer derived from the nature of the system of government itself.

Lets say the world government is instituted in this fashion:

>World Government- Controls the world answers to ()

>State Government- Controls a Region that is defined by the World Govt, Answers to World Govt

>County Government- Controls a moderate region defined by the state, answers to state.

>City Government- Controls a small region defined by the county, answers to the county.

>Town Government- Controls a very small region defined by the city/county- answers to city/county

 

You have local law enforcement and laws set up by the powers in a ascending manner to County/State and a descending manner from World to State/County.

Within the state and county laws are the result of local culture and are enforced likewise.

All of your questions would be answered by this type of governmental system

 

__________

I hate it when formatting takes away my spaces and tabs >

__________

Question...are you proposing a decentralized governmental system that falls under global law with regards to an agreed upon terms of human rights?

I might be able to get behind that...

My first thought is how would the economics work since there is such a variance upon cultural financial accruement.

Well, Gnosticism means a totally different thing than you said; it is definitely not the opposite of agnosticism. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

First, if you look up the antonym for gnostic, you will find the counter "agnostic". So I think I used the term correctly within the context (please do note the small "g").

link

I find it interesting that a word ("agnostic") that has only been coined in the last 150 years has been conflated with a Christian sect (Gnostic) of a couple of thousand of years ago. The wiki site that you sourced was an assignment of a philosophy not a definition.

A clarification of atheism: most atheists while not believing in god(s), also do not believe there is no god; this position is called weak atheism or agnostic atheism. The atheists who believe there is no god are called strong atheists, and make most of the noise among the atheists despite being a small proportion. Much time is lost in religious discussions when theists assume their opponent is a strong atheist despite the unlikeliness of that.

Let's have a chart:

This is why I request that this thread be genuinely considered as an epistemological inquiry into the terms that we use but do not necessarily agree upon.

I think that atheism can be consistent with pantheism.

(Thank you, Mr. Skeptic for responding. )

I see it...thank you!

Can we have a "jump to: /insert forum here" somewhere on the page? I see a thread search but not a "jump to" section that would enable the user to navigate the forums without having to jump to the main forum page...it would be a time saver.

There are some terms that are used in the religious forum that I think need clarification in order to facilitate better communication.

Theism, ...believes in a supernatural moral agent/creator.

Atheism, ...does not believe in a supernatural moral agent/creator.

Pantheism, ...does not believe in a supernatural moral agent/creator but rather believes that "god" is in everything and composites the Universe.

Gnosticism, ...claims we can know whether god exists or not.

Agnosticism, ...claims we can not know whether god exists or not.

So when we use these terms what do we mean? And what do we mean by "god"?

If the term "god" is defined by what we revere, is there not a fluidity in the conceptional view?

Blimey, Jimmy...slagging off on the Yanks?

Here is an asshat:

And when you can be arsed enough will you please explain to me the etymological properties of "munter", "eegit" and "bint"? And how they compare to the American synonyms?

Your original post was:

 

What does God have to do with "purple unicorns and plaid green clad ass fairies"? You didn't even bother to define your terms. This is a attempt to claim that believing in God is similar to believing in "purple unicorns and plaid green clad ass fairies".

 

Then when The Clairvoyant comes up with the fallacy (which you know well is a fallacy) that God is more popular, so more believable, what do you do? You run with it! You even managed to contort his use of the word 'popular' to bring Harry Potter into the mix.

Let us go ahead and name the fallacy...ad populum. And many people use it. After all...so many people can't be wrong can they?

"purple unicorns and plaid green clad ass fairies"

This is an appeal to ridicule...just as fallacious. I understand the original intent of the argument, but purple unicorns are clearly a figment of the person who is arguing against the concept of "god"'s imagination and should not be in the same category as "god" within the context of this discussion, considering nobody has made the case for a pantheistic view of "god". Really, I think we should first discuss the semantics of the term "god" before engaging in any form of discussion about "god", that way we can make sure we are talking about "god" and not about religion.

Two entirely different things, IMO.

If people felt sad simply because sad things happened to them, then psychologists and psychiatrists would lose sadness as a disease of the mind they could claim to treat, rather than as a highly varied problem in the outside world they could not, and with this they would also lose income, social prestige, and power. The usual phenomenological distinction to separate the 'depression disease' from ordinary sadness in response to sad events is that depression is deep and lasting while normal sadness is temporary, but what about sad events which are long-lasting, constantly evolve so that people can never accommodate to them, and cannot be fixed? It would seem that the normal response to such depressive, real-world triggers would be perpetual sadness, and that any reaction other than sadness would be the 'belle indifference' of schizophrenia, or some form of mania. However the person reacts, he falls into one diagnostic category or the other and so never escapes the power of the psychotherapeutic establishment.

 

But the psychotherapeutic establishment claims that depression is 'real' and distinct from ordinary sadness because it corresponds to chemical changes in the brain. But since no modern scientist believes that thoughts, emotions, and mental states occur in an immaterial soul, but believes instead that all thinking goes on in a material brain where it corresponds to physical changes in that brain, then obviously all thought, pathological as well as healthy, corresponds to chemical changes in the brain. When we see an apple, there corresponds to it some electro-chemical state of the brain which we could call 'seeing an apple disease' if we wanted to, and if psychiatrists were particularly short of business, perhaps they could define this in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as a form of mental illness which required talking therapy, social management, and medication to remove, rather than just removing the apple, to cure it.

 

The true treatment for lasting sadness is to get rid of the objective stimuli in the outside world causing it, rather than to tinker with the mind of the perceiver until he can't respond to it normally any more, so when he is drugged to the point of feeling better we can say he is 'cured.'

 

A diagnosis of depression only seems appropriate where extreme sadness exists where there is no objective stimulus which could account for it, but what adult human has ever been fortunate enough to live in a world where there is nothing -- from the thought of the inevitability of death to concern over the suffering of other people -- that could prompt feelings of extreme and lasting sadness?

Are you begging the question as to whether or not a general malaise is congruent with the sense of powerlessness that is associated with apathy or the overwhelming sense of moroseness that stems from failing to overcome the world's ills?

Then I don't think seeing an apple is a disease.

But please keep in mind it is their apple.

Is it reactive or endogenic?

Wishing you a speedy recovery, Moontanman!

There's a link in the OP. "Sham" acupuncture works.

Ooops...thank you Swansont.

I found this interesting in the article:

Only 15 percent of patients who received real acupuncture used extra pain medication, but 34 percent of patients in the sham group and 59 percent of patients in conventional therapy needed extra pain pills.

But then I also felt that the research was guided by this:

The study design may also have blurred the lines between real and fake acupuncture, muting the effects of the real thing. For instance, in traditional Chinese acupuncture, the needle insertion points are along specific areas called meridians, but the exact point of insertion is decided on a patient-by-patient basis, depending on the patient’s body and area of pain. In the study, however, a standard map was used so that the needle insertion point was the same for every patient. In addition, trained acupuncturists also were asked to administer the fake treatment and insert needles at specific points outside of traditional meridians. Although researchers sometimes stepped into treatment sessions to check on the location of the needles, it’s possible that some of the sham treatments were similar to real acupuncture.

Confirmation bias of due interpretation?