iNow

For those who want to watch: HY_utC-hrjI

And how exactly might we test that one, mate? :confused:

Well, I was going for funny, so I'm glad to have achieved my goal. If I managed to make a larger point while doing so, well... then that's just icing.

No. He's not. He's arguing that the word "marriage" itself is what needs to be changed. He's arguing for "civil unions" as the label for both same and opposite sex couples. I know this becuase he's said as much repeatedly in this thread. To Padrens question, I'd like to know what we will check on the tax forms ("Single, Unioned, Divorced") and how it will do anything in common parlance... "Oh my god, I'm getting unioned on Saturday. We have to go down to the courthouse and get a union license. Hopefully, 20 years from now, we won't need union counseling to make our union better." Hmm... Would we even still have divorce, or would people become deunionized? Wow, the layers on this onion are deep. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedYou know, as I think more about this, I think I'm slowly coming around to the whole "precision of language" approach. We should call it "A mutually agreed upon adult-level consent for the monogomous relationship of two partners to be recognized by the government and acquire the 1138 distinct rights and priveleges which come with that based on existing statutes." It just rolls right off the tongue. For those who have difficulty reading, we could shorten it and call it a "MAUALCFTMROTPTBRBTGAATEDRAPWCWTBOES." Yeah... I'm coming around to this "precision of language" thing. Marriage is too fuzzy and easily understood. "Civil Union Counseling: We're here for you when the civility of your civil union is lacking."

It was a factual observation. You're quite wrong here, Pangloss, but your the mod, so do whatever the hell you want. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion. Show me again which post of Scrappy's was discussing Mr Skeptics original question "Should the government drop the word "marriage?" I must have missed it somewhere in all of his logical fallacies. He looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. How DARE I call him a duck... I'm clearly just trying to marginalize his opinion.

I'd suggest cognitive behavioral therapy, and exposure therapy techniques.

There's been a lot of work in this arena. Here's one from the wiki article I read on Korsakoff's syndrome: http://www.tianeptine.com/cortisol-stress.html That wiki article I referenced says this: Also, alcohol is, by itself, neurotoxic. It will cause neural damage taken in excess, especially in the hippocampus. The body responds to alcohol ingestion by releasing cortisol as a neuroprotective mechanism (animals that have been adrenalectomized may be killed by a fraction of the dose of alcohol that an unadrenalectomized animal may tolerate). Cortisol, specifically, has been shown to cause irreversible damage to the hippocampus when present in large amounts for extended periods of time.[7] Alcohol in excess may be causal in and of itself in Korsakoff dementia regardless of thiamine addition to spirits. The reference listed in the quote as [7] is what I provided a link for above.

Yes, and most of it is on the television, the radio, and internet forums. Please speak for yourself.

Because pot is a psychotropic substance which has a measurable effect on ones capacity to think and perceive clearly. It impacts cognitive and motor function, and the impact is measurable. Same sex marriage is different because it involves human beings who simply have a different sexual preference than the majority. They are, however, humans, and not inanimate objects, so deserve the equal rights and protections guarenteed them in the constitution. Further, they have NO MEASURABLE IMPACT on others for being allowed equal rights and state recognized marriage. Absolutely it has. It is a government act which EXPLICITY removes rights from people. That question is a no-brainer (also, I presume you meant "same sex marriage supporters"). Now this quote is classic, and spoken like someone who hasn't been paying a damned bit of attention. The California Supreme Court ALREADY struck down as unconstitutional bans on same sex marriage when they ruled on Prop 22. Suddenly, now YOU'RE the one rejecting their opinion and supporting Prop 8, a ballot measure with the exact same wording as Prop 22 (which had already been ruled unconstitutional). I asked you earlier in the thread to go look up the words "equality," and "bigotry." Now, it's time for you to grab that dictionary once more and look up "hypocricy." I agree. It's time for me to start shooting stupid people in the face with a pistol. You continue to assert some established definition of marriage despite your FAILURE to support that contention after numerous requests. I've got another word for you to lookup: Troll. Oh, and lookup "hippy" too. Just because you smoke pot doesn't make you a hippy To be a hippy, you have to stand up for peace and equality, and the elimination of mindless biases in our institutions. line[/hr]

I don't think you're crazy. I think you're wasting your time. You're trying to make a work of fiction match reality, instead of spending your time trying to better understand reality itself. You can make a connection with anything if you try hard enough. It doesn't mean the connection has any meaning.

No, I just said that I probably understand your point better than you do. The only thing holding me back is a lack of desire to repeat myself, again. Take it easy, friend.

Well, if I were an AIG executive, I'd be spending some time researching the history of the decapitations which took place during the French Revolution, and searching for ways not to extend my neck across the guillotines cutting edge. While in normal conditions, your arugment would be more than sufficient, right now... The blood lust in the populace makes the above argument a self-imposed target on your back. Take the longer term view and reject the short-term bonus. Not only that, but get on every media outlet you can proudly proclaiming that you've done exactly that. That's what I would do. It would set me up well later on when people are looking for trustworthy and informed voices, ultimately allowing me to make even more.

Does that mean I'll be flying bicycles with wings in Kitty Hawk? And here's where the issue resides. The question is, "Was it beneficial to society?" We are suffering now due to a false pretense of success. We were not living high on any hogs, but living high on a hog pinata... empty paper mache with with some candy inside, but no real sustenance or nutrients to enrich us and make us healthy. Yeah, we were able to succeed at "acquiring stuff" for a lot of years, but the measure of success must be more robust than that, mustn't it? I would think that success would be measured in terms of "sustainability," and "collective good," not in more topical and shallow measures like, "I've got a flat screen and a Lexus." I'm relying a bit heavily on the metaphor here, tonight. Sorry if my intent is not coming through clearly. I'll revisit this in the morrow.

Right now, in the midst of one of the single greatest economic challenges our country and our planet has ever faced, the United States is trying to "win the battle" with just "one guy on a horse." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/business/economy/19geithner.html Mr. Geithner is shouldering more crises on his slight frame than most Treasury secretaries ever have. And he is doing so without the usual complement of Treasury assistants because of administration delays in vetting potential nominees — a consequence in part of its efforts to avoid embarrassments like the disclosures of Mr. Geithner’s past tax lapses, which nearly doomed his nomination. Since before his confirmation in late January, Mr. Geithner has juggled a crushing workload: overhauling the Bush administration’s discredited financial bailout program; helping with Mr. Obama’s nearly $800 billion economic stimulus plan; and managing the government effort to salvage the auto industry. Mr. Geithner is now fashioning a new federal regulatory structure for the financial industry to replace the one that failed. He has developed a housing program that aims to avert up to nine million more foreclosures, and programs for getting credit flowing to small businesses and consumers as well as the major financial giants. At 47, the same age as the president, Mr. Geithner works out at 5:30 a.m., gets to his desk by 6:30 and leaves 15 hours later. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on why appointments in the US Treasury aren't moving through right now. I want to hear your speculations on what this limited staffing actually means for you and me, John and Susie Q. Public. I am interested to understand your concerns about the lack of a large talented team in place, and our current reliance on a single "clean-up batter" to bring home the proverbial trophy.

Well, I think it's my point being missed, and also rather likely that I understand your point better than you do. However, I'm sometimes rather arrogant, and may be missing some subtle complexity in your posts, so who knows, eh? And it's comments like this which incline me to believe　that you really don't understand. If you're talking about AIG, then you ARE talking about banks and car companies. It's really that simple.

QFT. This comment is one that should be remembered by people of all ideologies and perspectives.

It's a US-based solution to an Earth-wide problem. Your post strikes me as mostly populist anger (which I do share, mind you), but not much noticable understanding of the systemic connections and risks. If you blow up the foundation of a sky scraper, it's important not to focus entirely on the cement, and realize there's a lot of building resting on it which will crumble without it. Bankrupcy doesn't reinforce the cement or sturdy the foundation, it evacuates it and makes all of the structures it supports less stable as well.

It's called "Chex Mix and beer," friend. Where the hell have you been?

Yeah, like a permanent ban. He contributes nothing but obfuscation and misguided ideas based on faulty premises. He posts as "HydrogenBond" at other fora where they're dealing with the same nonsense, non-response to specific questions, and endless repetition of points repeatedly and flatly debunked.

That's arguable, though. "Ideologically," a company should not write policies which they simply don't have the capital to cover. "Ideologically," that's really bad business, and ignores the reality of why insurance companies exist... Not purely as an entity in place to make money, but at its heart a company in place to cover losses for clients. That could very easily be argued to be an ideological error... After all, the "details" in this case spread throughout their ENTIRE business. It's not like some kid named Chuck in the IT department forgot a semicolon in his spam filter code. Now THAT would be a problem with details.

Because they were the insurer on practically every banks bad loans. The banks bought insurance on their loans and mortages, such that if those loans and mortages went unpaid, they would collect insurance to cover the loss. Well, the banks started collecting the insurance due to too many unpaid loans and mortgages, resulting in mounting losses. AIG, although at fault for guaranteeing/insuring so many of the various banks policies despite their failure at meeting capital requirements for those policies, cannot be allowed to fail because their failure results in bank failures across the entire globe... many bank failures across the globe... which ultimately results in all of us standing in line at soup kitchens and trying to find a way to eat rocks and make clothes out of discarded trash.

No, not always. Be careful with the absolute statements, and go lookup Korsakoff's syndrome. Further, alcohol is neurotoxic by itself. It causes the release of cortisol (a stress hormone) which causes irreversible damage to the hippocampus, an area mostly known for its role in memory.

Should the government drop the word "marriage" No, they should continue using the word, and however they may choose to do so, its use should include same sex couples.

Why do you guys always bash religion? I just don't understand. If that is what the pope believes, you should respect it. What an unbelievably dumbass thing to say. Note to self: Christianity will be dead much sooner than I thought. Update your calendar.

No, actually, you wouldn't. The part you seem to be missing is that the fear infrastructure is almost entirely overlapped with the neurophysiology of every other emotion and feeling. You seem to be of the impression that our fear mechanism is some sort of lego piece which can simply be removed without effecting other systems. It's not. You could stick a screwdriver through your amygdala and left thalamus, but you'd do more than just remove your ability to feel fear. In short, absolutely not. Yes, you can remove the fear response, but you cannot do so without removing a multitude of other mental responses we REQUIRE for survival.