Axiomatic

Great post. This is a good question I would like answered also.

I agree with you for the most part here Ryan.

Yup, I have since come to the same conclusion after going through their website a bit more thoroughly.

I would like to again nominate Dwayne for the position of another moderator position due to his consistent rationality, skill in dissolving disputes and his time-zone relation to knast.

Thats obvious and resonable Does that mean that the moderator must 'switch modes' between being informal and acting in the professional capacity , or do you mean that he just must act formal all of the time? This is certainly reasonable Thats pretty ambiguous. So a moderator can use his position against people arbitrarily for his own personal disagreements or not? Would it not be more prudent to lay down precisely what general instances a moderator may exercise their powers. For example, if someone persistently attacks O'ism or prominent O'ists or indeed other users with ad homenin attacks that add no value to rational discussion, can that be an instance where a moderator can use his powers or not? Thats also pretty vague, but I get your general point. I hope you mean in this instance that in by 'as moderator' you mean when exercising powers of moderation and that one does not need to be uptight and 'professional' in every instance of discussion in chat. That would make the position of moderator of chat very undesirable indeed.

Consensus is not proof of anything. If everyone you knew agreed that the world was flat in the face of evidence to the contrary, would you consider that the truth?

Yup, I second this motion! Dwayne for mod please!

I could not agree more!

Seconded!

^^^^This The mans love of Astronomy got me interested in it. Its such an important science too!

That is an excellent definition.

I completely agree Fahrenheit was much more poignant than 1984 or BNW. While 1984 and BNW both focused on the malevolent aspect and methods of state control, Fahrenheit 451 was set in such a future but focused more on the cultural vacuum left over from citizens outright rejection of the intellect, with malevolent state control portrayed accurately as the end result fitting of such a vacuum.

Wow, this guy worked in 'military intelligence'. I thought this was a joke at first but no this is for real. He has a degree in political science!? This has got to be a plant or a mistake of some description, otherwise this might indeed be a snapshot view of the kind of candidates America can expect in the future. Reminds me of that movie 'Idiocracy'.

I stumbled across this website not so long ago and have recently read an article about the work. Was wondering if any scientists on this board would care to comment on this apparently new way to produce energy from hydrogen. I'm pretty sure it has met with a lot of derision so far, but I don't know enough about this to comment. http://www.blacklightpower.com/ Article I read: http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=6bcdajsb

Yeah, very true and sad.

Yes, a more Voltaire style response would have been better. Something along the lines of. "While I do not condone what some people do with their property I will defend to the death their right to own it"

Agreed.

OK. All boats to hell are equal.

I'd take neo-conservatism over total socialism any day.

After not only having read The Gambler by Dostoevsky but having spent half the day with a compulsive gambler watching him losing all of his money I will likely never gamble again. This experience has left a very nasty taste in my mouth to say the least.

Toohey: What do you think of Libertarianism Mr Roark? Howard: I don't.

After reading through and thinking about your previous reply this is where I'm at now also. Its not a moral act due to the fact that it was not earned by ones own merits for oneself, and it is not an immoral act due to one not advocating the sacrifice. This is quite an interesting dilemma as previously I thought of ethics and being black and white with no really 'neutral' grounds. So my next question is, is there a moral grey area with regard to receiving sacrificial offerings? Or is it just simply not within the sphere of ethics at all?

I just don't see the point, they are cheap, they are tacky and they are juvenile.

My original story pertains to self-sacrifice of a self-destructive person. If this were further concertized to a relative dying of a self-inflicted condition then it does not change the context much but gives on pause for thought. I did not ask whether or not you despised your relatives, nor do I care. I am asking you to consider the situation. I agree that there are issues to work through on this point hence why I made this thread, but you are not getting to the crux of the situation at all, so please either add something with proper reasoning to the thread or go away.

You bring up some excellent points and some good questions. I'll have to think some more before I respond. Thank you.