Maarten

But doesn't it also mean in the shorter term that if you do make wise investments, you can make more of them and profit from the inflationary period (at the expense of others who make bad decisions, basically)? Because for the wise investor, there IS more money available, so to speak, and it is easier to get capital for whatever it is you want to do. So it seems then that for anyone who performs above average, it could be an advantage (even though it is bad for the economy on average).

Well, I don't think it's so much about needing to have trouble paying for it; if we do not have taxation in a free society, it would be a lot better if you can find a way for prisoners to pay for their own necessities. That way it poses no drain whatsoever on the rest of society, and it makes the rest of government that much easier to sustain in a moral and practical way.

To expand upon my earlier post; obviously the government shouldn't be competing with most jobs, because the labor would be virtually free and that would be unfair competition, but there are certainly some activities that you can make them engage in, and I do not think that's a violation of the criminal's rights if you take their basic needs into account. The fact that some prisoners have higher standards of living than non-criminals is somewhat ridiculous, because if prison ever becomes a desirable alternative, something is wrong.

It's really a similar question as to whether it's a good idea to have a death penalty. Some of these experiments could very well have lasting effects, and if the person is later found to be innocent, you'd have committed a much graver injustice than mere imprisonment. As an alternative, I don't really see the problem with forcing them to actually do something constructive, like work. I mean, given how much it costs to support them, I think it would be much better to let them support at least some part of their own living expenses (i.e. the money that's earned this way can be used by the prison to pay for food and supervision and all that).

Well, it's kinda difficult to do that, especially in light of the fact that even many adults cannot really judge the consequences of their actions very well. One way to do it, would be by having an expert in psychology talk to the individual in question for an extended period of time. I think that is the easiest way to determine such things; all that remains is finding the proper criteria for making such a judgment. I think one of the things they need to show is the ability to explain the difference between short term consequences of actions and longer term ones. With regards to sex, if they can explain what all the main considerations are that one normally needs to make when entering into a relationship with another person, in their own words, that would be a good indication that they understand what they are doing. This could also include examples of things that are bad, and examples of what they see as good. The same could be done with other areas in which they need to demonstrate their ability to know the consequences of their actions. Like with things like agreeing to contracts, and what that entails, and anything else one may need to be able to do as an adult that a child cannot.

I see your point. But still, would you agree that it is a good idea to make it possible for someone who is below the age of consent to prove that they do fully understand the consequences of their actions? I mean, it is definitely possible that is the case, because various people mature at different rates. Just because most people are not capable of making that decision at a given age still allows for the possibility that some can. Shouldn't there be a way for those people to prove that they can make it, in an objective way?

But wouldn't either of the people involved in the act then need to object to the events that had taken place? I mean, drawing a hard line here about what age someone needs to be before they're allowed to have sex (which is really what this comes down to, because apparently the government can determine for someone when they can consent to sex) seems much more unjust than requiring proof that coercion was involved and the minor didn't act of their own volition. Otherwise, there should be a clear way in which a minor can prove that they are capable of making this decision; I don't think there currently is something like that. I do think it makes sense to draw a line somewhere, but there has to be an easily verifiable mechanism in place to allow people who are not old enough to make such decisions if they can prove they can make them. But more fundamentally than that, there is still no victim in this crime, which indicates that the law forbidding this is just ridiculous. *edit* Because I do think it comes down to a choice you have to make as to how limiting you want to be. Given that the government's job is just to protect the rights of its citizens, any law that professes to do so must take into account that in some cases the law itself is preventing people from exercising their rights, and I think that is a worse injustice. I would rather have a case where it is more difficult to prove that it is indeed a violation of the child's rights, than the current situation where non-adults are prevented from making decisions they are fully able to make; because in that case they are not fundamentally different from adults and the law should respect that.

I agree; I do not personally believe that it's a good thing for them to have sex at such a young age, because I think they would likely lack the mental maturity to deal with it in a proper way. But that is an issue between these children and their parents, and it is ridiculous that it can be seen as a crime. It is none of anyone's business what they do, except their own and by extension, as minors, their direct guardians/parents. But forcefully preventing them from having sex is a much greater moral crime than the thing it supposedly resolves, and I think this is definitely one issue where even though it might in many cases be immoral (in the sense that it's bad for those involved), it shouldn't be illegal.

Well, you'd still be stuck at having 1 gram be worth about 28 or 29 dollars, but the nice thing about the SI units is that for smaller quantities, you can just have 1 mg, 5mg, 10mg, 50mg, 100 mg and 250 mg notes/coins. Those would be pretty close in value to what we have, today. 1 milligram of gold would be about 3 cents in today's economy, and you could easily use small coins that are redeemable for that value of gold. Either that, or use a second, less precious metal that is used for smaller quantities, and which forms the coin itself. You can probably still make small silver/something coins and use those, if one wanted to.

Hickabee (heh) lost the SC primary, which is a pretty bad sign for him. South Carolina is one of the more conservative states in the US, and if he doesn't have enough support there from evangelical republicans, then I do not think he'll be able to get the nomination. Most states are much less likely to vote for this guy, after all. As bad as McCain is, I'd much, much rather have him as a president than Mike Huckabee.

The fact that my eloquent argument managed to convince you must mean that I'm actually a girl. I learn something new about myself every day, it seems. Which is one strike against the belief that men cannot understand women; apparently they can!

But on the other hand, if you're weaker than average at something that could very well end up hurting you; I think it's very important to minimize the impact such things have on your life, and one great way to do that is by becoming better at those weaknesses you consider to be important. I think being more aware of various ways people communicate is definitely really useful; more perceptual level information is always good, because it allows you to better judge people for what they're truly worth, and it can end up saving you a lot of pain, or help you recognize someone who really is amazing that much better.

Yeah, but just because they are better at it doesn't mean men cannot learn how to pick up nonverbal signs very effectively. It's just that most guys don't ever bother with that. But it's a seriously useful skill, and there are enough guys who can pick up body language very well, so I wouldn't say it's impossible. With effort, you can still be much, much better at it than most women are, even though it's unlikely for a man to reach the same level of mastery with this that a woman could. Women are perfectly understandable, they're just different in some ways that makes it hard for you to understand them if you approach everything from your own context. I think a lot of people attach way too much importance to these kinds of genetic predispositions; that alone makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy, because if men believe they can't do it they're unlikely to try and get better at it, and the same holds true for those areas in which men are on average more talented. I mean, for pretty much all of these types of brain activity I can see very valuable applications, so why not choose to learn them to the best of your ability? I think that that will ultimately make your life much better than ignoring them because you may never be the best in that. Ultimately, it's not about being the best in something; it's about whether or not some ability or skill you can nourish and improve furthers your life. Especially for these communicational abilities, being more proficient at those is something that makes interacting with other people infinitely more interesting. Why would you not want that as a man?

Wait, how did *that* follow from what he said?

I mean that in the context of: thinking that you should be attracted to someone when you're not. That doesn't make any sort of sense to me. At least, in the context of pursuing romantic relationships.

Hmm, maybe because you think this person is absolutely amazing in every way that matters to you, and you want to be with them romantically? I guess we could argue that every guy should date guys, because they're obviously superior and it would be destructive towards human flourishing to go with the lesser alternative. But then, I do not think you can attach oughts to romantic attraction; you are attracted to someone because they represent many things you value (subconsciously or not). If that person happens to be a woman, great. If they're not, also great. I think the question of why you should want to be with a woman is misguided; it's primarily about finding someone you can love and admire deeply, and to whom you're very much attracted. If that's all the case, who cares about whether or not the average woman or man is better? You're not in a relationship with the average person, I hope...

I'm sorry, but how can you make statements like the ones you made when you obviously have no basis for them? What you offered is about as substantial as the standard religious argument of: "I have no evidence for X, but the bible/God/my preacher says it's like this and therefore it must be."

How exactly does being physically stronger equate to being physically better? Maybe I missed the redefinition of man as the "strong animal", instead of the "rational animal". But I do not see how your physical strength makes any sort of impact on what you can do in your life, in any relevant sense. Also, please explain in what other ways men are better. Your current statement is really vague, and as such it's hard to respond to it in a meaningful way. The ability to have as many orgasms as they like?

Well, the fact that they signed it later than I thought they did only solidifies my point, which was that it doesn't make sense to judge a country for not following a treaty which didn't even exist back then. At least, that part of it didn't. That's like condemning people who lived in 1900 for not being perfect Objectivists. It's quite difficult to consistently follow some idea if it has never been explicitly stated, so I do not think we can hold it against anyone. That's just a different way of setting omniscience as a standard for knowledge.

He's obviously crazy, then. I mean, there's really no other explanation for being able to do that and suffering no psychological distress from the act. Right?

The Geneva Convention concerning the treatment of civilians in war was ratified in 1949, so you could hardly say that the U.S. broke this agreement during WWII...

Well, if life has always existed, then I don't understand why it took so long for it to evolve past unicellular organisms. Given the fact they found fossils, and the fact that they became more complex as time passed, it seems to indicate that life went from very rudimentary to complex, which implies a beginning point. It would be very strange for an organism that has existed in a simple form for eternity, to suddenly change. I think the alternative of life being eternal only makes sense if life as we know it has existed for all of eternity, which basically means that species only change in minute ways, and that there's no evolution from one species into another.

But this is exactly why you shouldn't use alcohol to "overcome" those phobias; all it does is increase the risk of becoming dependent upon the stuff. I mean, if you can only do something because you were fairly inebriated, then it stands to reason that you'll need to drink every time to keep up that behavior, or to make sure that people still see you in that same light. Faking social aptitude like that is just another form of trying to gain some value by pretending to be something you're not.

DNA itself doesn't cause anything to happen. And to a large extent, it is very similar to our own languages, because you have base-pairs that combine together to form codons, and these codons are recognized by the correct tRNA molecule, which causes a certain amino-acid to be put into its place. And there are certain grammatical rules present, so to speak, that allow for certain combinations and not others. Yes your "sentences" are longer than in most human languages (except maybe German ), but there is a definite order to it that is followed. Whether the language was designed by man or not doesn't matter one bit. I am not suggesting that this implies intent on the part of the machinery; but the process is very similar to letting a machine read a language and translate it into another language. Again, the only difference is that instead of the machine being programmed by human beings, it functions in the way it functions because that best aided the life of whatever organism it is in. The way you're describing the whole process makes no sense at all from a perspective of trying to understand what is actually going on there; that is why it is helpful to use the terms people use because it is far easier to grasp the process that way. All you need to do is keep in mind that it is a different kind of translation that is occurring there than when I would translate a language manually. The fact is, there simply aren't any good words to describe these processes in a way that's completely free from our own point of view. Why would we go to a lot of extra trouble inventing all sorts of new terms for this when the old ones apply just as well?

But it's not more significant than many other physical characteristics a person may possess. Being proud of your sexual orientation (whether it's straight or gay or bi) makes as much sense to me as being proud of being blond-haired and blue-eyed. Identifying yourself by your sexual orientation doesn't help anyone, because you're using something that is completely non-essential to your being as a way of defining yourself. The insistence that labels such as this matter for who you are is one of the biggest problems I see within the homosexual community. Homosexuality will never be seen as something that's completely normal and trivial as long as people use it as a way of differentiating themselves. And that insistence is much more powerful in the gay community itself than outside of it. In a similar vein as with capitalism: with friends like that, who needs enemies? It is one thing to have some Christian fundamentalist arguing how gay people are different and bad, but most people don't pay them any attention because they can see it's stupid. But when the actual victims agree with the anti-gay crowd that they are different they surrender the whole argument.