FeatherFall

Harrison, I think you're inviting exactly the kind of smears proliferated by Mooney when you discuss the issue this way. When people discuss this issue they rarely define terms, and that works for the fear mongers. There is broad consensus regarding the direct effect of CO2; about 1 degree C per doubling of CO2 - most skeptics agree with this. The trick of vague terms is performed when we start to layer or conflate terms that denote entirely different concepts. The direct effect of CO2 is just one part of the "Greenhouse effect." But, because CO2 is the chemical that man seems to have the most control over, the phrase, "greenhouse effect," is used as a substitute for, "the direct effect of CO2." Terms are further obfuscated by use of the phrase, "global warming," to include the idea that that the greenhouse effect (and therefore CO2), is driving the temperature instead of simply being a contributing factor. "Climate change" is the final switch that smuggles in the idea that the globe is not just warming, but warming in a very bad, probably catastrophic way - such as the idea that feedback mechanisms triple the direct effect of CO2. Fearmongers work very hard to carry the consensus about the "greenhouse" effect over two steps thereby conjuring up a consensus about any peripheral and catastrophic claim made by climate researchers. Claiming there is no consensus plays into their hands. You'd do better to identify the common ground and embrace it so others can't steal it to support something else entirely. This has the added benefit of focusing the discussion on the science instead of the chearleading, so that each side can exchange information in a meaningful way.

What is your opinion, Pigsaw?I thought the video was mostly trash. It was a book promo (calling it an infomercial is not inappropriate) for a guy who now makes his living explaining the idea of confirmation bias and then uses that to demonize his political sect's opponents. There is truth to the idea that libertarians react to this issue emotionally, but that sort of person exists on the fearmongering side of this issue also. Confirmation bias is a fact of life for anyone of any political persuasion. But, Mooney's assertion that a discussion of climate science isn't going to matter is complete nonsense; he doesn't want to talk about evidence. He wants to sell a book and he'll use salacious smear tactics to do it. And he has the nerve to mention echo chambers! Edit: Having said this, it is interesting to note that the costs of "fixing" climate change are being hidden by the claim that such costs are, in fact, not costs because they fix externalities that shouldn't have happened in the first place. That argument appears to be more persuasive to libertarians.

I think you've got it figured out, M.

I agree with that. I brought up Firefly because, however unrealistic, it offers some concrete starting points to explore different types of prostitution that may be moral.

The anonymous comments from March 31st and April 2nd have some brilliant insights into the epistemology of gay marriage.

If we can look to works of art to provide concrete examples about how prostitution could be, consider the TV series Firefly. The companions on that show seemed to develop some sort of emotional connection with their clients.

I like what Reidy said. It also might help if you explained what you think the "moral status" of prostitution is.

Most people, including gay people, don't have a rigorous understanding of individual rights. Be careful not to condemn them for having such an understanding while acting against it. Broadly speaking, when people advocate for gay marriage, they are acting for equality before the law. If marriage wasn't a legal institution, I suspect you'd see very few gay people trying to break into it.

I'm a big fan of this guy, too. Sometimes he has sentimental stuff, but usually it's just good comedy.

I guess it's similar to prostitution. There is much less risk involved, but I don't see a difference in principle.

I'm unclear on this point. Are you saying you don't think penis/vagina interaction is essential to the love-making process?

You haven't shown the steps, sir. You've repeated the assertions of an authority along with your own. I will grant you that Rand's descriptions of this type of relationship jive perfectly with the idea that proper human sexuality is about reifying respect and admiration. Her example of masculinity/femininity serves as a concrete example. She has not, to my knowledge, shown why she thinks this is the only way to do that. Your task, then, is still to show your work. You're not getting credit for this assignment without it. And I didn't want to have to get this personal, but goddammit, I've accomplished this type of reification without strict biological intercourse. Sometimes you just don't have protection at hand, and the result can be just as satisfying - physically, hormonally, emotionally, spiritually. Edit2: PS: Rand never herself went as far as saying you needed the papa bits to enter the mama bits.

Does not follow. You're skipping steps... What are they, please?

IntellectualAmmo, You've said human sex can only occur between a man and a woman. You've also shown some knowledge about Objectivism's take on sex. You've basically offered two descriptions: 1)Sex is, physically speaking, a penis penetrating a vagina and nothing else. 2)Sex is the act of bringing love into reality. Now, which one hits closer to the definition? Biologically speaking, I'd say #1 - so long as the act culminates in conception... But we've already dispensed with baby-making as the purpose of sex; we certainly can't use it to deduce the second statement. So what if we're not talking about making babies, but rather the role of sex in the life of a rational being? Which statement is closer to the definition of sex? I think the answer is clearly #2. Working from that description, can you please show me (step by step) how you deduce that penile penetration of the vagina is necessary? Edit: I ask because if one statement implies the other, you should be able to induce or deduce freely between them. So far you've failed to show the connection from 1 to 2. Maybe you'll have better luck showing the connection from 2 to 1.

Homosexuals can only be said to be "sexually incompatible" if you are talking about reproduction. But we've already dispensed with the myth that sex is primarily about reproduction. I'll continue to take your silence on that point as acceptance of it. The only sexual compatibility that matters is a mutual combination of sexual arousal, respect and admiration. Fellating a different species couldn't fulfill the purpose of reifying a mutual respect and admiration. Fellating a human being can serve that purpose, as evidenced by heterosexual couples. To my knowledge, men and women have the same mouths. Ergo, homosexuals can reify respect and admiration through fellatio. It seems that your task, if you disagree, is to show why penis-vagina penetration is necessary to reify love. I'm willing to listen to that argument.

This seems like a non-sequitur to me. The stimulation of sex organs is precisely the point of sexual intercourse, 9 times out of 10. This serves the life-affirming spiritual purpose of reifying the respect and admiration that two people have for each other. This is the fundamental purpose of sex to most people. Can you please explain why people with matching sex organs can't do this? And please consider that you can't magic away the feelings of sexual attraction that gay people have for each other. You're treating such concretes as abstract ideas that can be redefined. They can't; they are very real things of chemistry, physics, mind and spirit. This hormonal attraction is a requirement of any appropriate sexual encounter; homosexual attraction can and does fulfill this requirement.

The short answer is that your rights are not a matter of what any given government expects. You are talking about the justification of government, so you don't talk about what a government expects until you hammer out the fundamentals. Then you can examine an expectation to determine if it is valid. The "social contract" is a package deal that attempts to conflate consent with force. You "consent" so long as you haven't run screaming from a particular geographic boundary. This "consent" is used as justification to take your property, press you into service as a warrior-slave, etc. Rights aren't contractual, they do not rely on consent for their validity. This is not to be confused with the fact that you may claim their protection only if you act in accordance with them (they are morally universal, so to speak). Human life requires the use of your mind, force is at odds with the mind, rights are moral principles that define freedom action in a social context (specifically they bar force). The previous two paragraphs are a very basic presentation of the fundamentals. But now that they are laid out, we can address B's statement. Both parts of which are true. You haven't signed a contract (rights aren't contractual in nature) and a proper government expects you to protect respect them. But the statement does absolutely nothing to address the problems with social contract theory.

That's the thing about these types of budgets that even college kids know. You never admit you can do something without the money or you won't get it. You always threaten to cut the most important program when faced with budget cuts. If the government paid for everyone's food and was faced with a budget cut, the first thing they'd threaten to cut would be baby formula.

You and the study may disagree on the definition of sexual abuse. Whether or not lewd comments should be included in that definition might be an interesting discussion.

.The robes, gavel, raised seating area, the order to stand when the judge arrives, etc, are the trappings of power that help bend the courtroom to behave as the judge wills. Right or wrong, they serve a purpose very effectively.

There are two points that I think are particularly interesting because the answers are not obvious. The first is this idea that there will be an increased chance of a teacher raping a student. I don't think it is a realistic fear. I am no expert on the matter, but when a teacher has sex with a student I don't think it is usually with brute force. My assumption is that it happens through the abuse of the "power relationship" combo of authority and the slow introduction of intimacy. The second idea is how to safely have a Firearm in the classroom. Teachers who wear blazers could easily and safely conceal the weapon in a shoulder holster. There are some hip holsters (like the SERPA) that require practice to effectively draw from, and they are extremely difficult to draw if you are not the person wearing the holster. Essentially, they require the push of a button or lever as well as a very particular drawing motion before the gun is released. Other ways to protect the gun would be to use a gun safe, but this gives me pause because there are several additional precautions people don't always take, such as bolting the safe to something immovable. I also wouldn't want to see like a combination safe in the classroom; given enough time an eight year old could crack the code. I'd be more comfortable with the teachers carrying the weapons on their persons.

It's going to pair with their rational faculty to allow them to better defend their charges. But you already knew that, right?

In my experience, the teachers that have emotional breakdowns are the same ones that are terrified of guns. I have met more than my share of confident and respectable teachers, and I would have felt safer if those teachers were armed.

Moralist, I think Nicky was addressing FRB as such, not FRB as practiced by the US (or other) governments. As practiced by the US, FRB is actually not fraud, but rather an example of a state-sanctioned coercive monopoly (which is bad, obviously).

Here is the video that originally got me interested in the issue in early February. Cato's Julian Sanchez discusses the white paper: He discussed al-Awlaki's son, but I don't want that issue to get in the way of Sanchez's other points (as Nicky mentioned, the son was probably not the primary target). One of the important points Sanchez raised was this: not only is the oversight kept secret, but there was also an attempt to keep the legal justification for such oversight secret.