The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

hey who knows they could have souls but I did specify from a scientific point of view :|

[Annoyed]

hey who knows they could have souls but I did specify from a scientific point of view :|

Again, how do you *KNOW*? Can you point to anything that definitively states that plants have no self awareness?

[SoulReaver]

Again, how do you *KNOW*? Can you point to anything that definitively states that plants have no self awareness?

wait, you no longer trust scientists?

interesting game nonetheless, I'll play
can you point to anything that definitely states that rocks have no self awareness?

[Annoyed]

wait, you no longer trust scientists?

interesting game nonetheless, I'll play
can you point to anything that definitely states that rocks have no self awareness?

Nope. For all we know, they do. Or at least some rocks might.
This has already been explored in Star Trek (TOS) episodes "Spectre of the Gun" and "Devil in the Dark", although it is highly likely that the animated rocks in Spectre were illusions, projected onto the crews minds by the Melkotians. One of the paperback books involves living rocks as well, "Doctors Orders", by Diane Duane.
And of course, the Guardian of Forever can be considered a living rock of sorts.

The point I'm making is that you can't PROVE something doesn't exist, you can't prove a negative. The best that can be said is that we have no evidence that something exists. That does not mean the object or situation does not exist somewhere.

[SoulReaver]

how'bout that I was thinking of the Horta too (but these things moved iirc)

The point I'm making is that you can't PROVE something doesn't exist, you can't prove a negative. The best that can be said is that we have no evidence that something exists. That does not mean the object or situation does not exist somewhere.

yup - and the point I was making is this is an argument religious folks make not scientists

[Annoyed]

how'bout that I was thinking of the Horta too (but these things moved iirc)

yup - and the point I was making is this is an argument religious folks make not scientists

I would maintain the argument is based in logic, regardless of who is making it.

[Falcon Horus]

Once conception occurs, you are talking about a human life.

And how do you feel about a rape victim choosing to get rid of the fruit of that experience?

[garhkal]

Because in a marriage, there are still two people. And if those two people are still happily married, it's only natural that there will be talk of having children at some point in time. If it happened before the marriage, which it usually does, either party can say that they don't want kids and if that's an issue maybe they can still decide not to go through with the relationship. However, once married I expect there is a mutual understanding between, in this case, husband and wife to make life-changing decisions together.... And I'm fairly sure that in a marriage an abortion is as much the wife's decision as it is the husbands. Or the snipping of the husband is as much his decision as it is hers. You decide together, and if you want the marriage to last, you don't go behind each other's backs.

Then why is it in a marriage, i have never heard of a husband needing to sign off on the wife's getting of an abortion, unlike the many instances where the hubby needs the wife's ok to get snipped??
But i agree, it SHOULD be both's decision. It just seems that its not applied that way.

1: LSoS = "Lying Sack of Shiznit" - What I usually refer to the current occupant of the White House as.

Or as I (and many on the GOPusa site) say, PINO (President in name only).


In other news, i saw this on Google news..

http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/15/89...bama-broadband

http://www.inflexwetrust.com/2015/07...come-families/

http://www.denverpost.com/politics/c...homes-internet

http://www.worldmag.com/2015/07/obam..._poor_families

A new pilot program called ConnectHome may be the first step in changing the online experience of low-income families around the country. Today the White House announced that Google, along with ISPs like Cox, Sprint, and Century Link will be providing 275,000 low-income families with free or deeply discounted broadband service. President Obama is expected to announce the plan during a speech at a high school in Durant, Oklahoma later today.

ConnectHome will roll out in 27 cities across the country, including Atlanta, Los Angeles, Cleveland, Newark, New Orleans, and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. The initial rollout is focused on reaching low-income families with school-aged children. "While many middle-class US students go home to internet access, allowing them to do research, write papers, and communicate digitally with their teachers and other students, too many lower-income children go unplugged every afternoon when school ends," the White House said in a statement, first reported by Bloomberg. The announcement comes after a new report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers that shows income is still the biggest barrier to gaining broadband access, even over geography.

Google Fiber will offer free service for low-income families in Atlanta, Durham, Kansas City, and Nashville, while Cox will offer broadband for $9.99 a month to families in cities including Macon, Georgia, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and New Orleans. The Department of Housing and Urban Development will also require new public housing developments to support broadband going forward. Best Buy PBS, the American Library Association, and Boys and Girls Clubs of America will offer internet training to low-income families as well in a number of cities.

So while millions of us who work have to pay for OUR internet, those who live on welfare/min wage, can now get it for free or highly discounted.

First off, i thought that is why we pay for libraries to HAVE internet areas. So those who don't have it at home can connect?

2nd, since when we started providing "Obama-phones" to "lower income" those of us who pay for our services saw a hike in what we pay to cover it.. Will the same thing happen here?

Lastly, what else will now get looked at to be made 'free' to "Lower income" people? Gas supply? Water? Power (electric)??
Don't we already subsidise that with our tax dollars in the form of welfare, section 8 housing etc?

[Annoyed]

So while millions of us who work have to pay for OUR internet, those who live on welfare/min wage, can now get it for free or highly discounted.

First off, i thought that is why we pay for libraries to HAVE internet areas. So those who don't have it at home can connect?

2nd, since when we started providing "Obama-phones" to "lower income" those of us who pay for our services saw a hike in what we pay to cover it.. Will the same thing happen here?

Lastly, what else will now get looked at to be made 'free' to "Lower income" people? Gas supply? Water? Power (electric)??
Don't we already subsidise that with our tax dollars in the form of welfare, section 8 housing etc?

As far as I can tell, it comes down to there being more people riding on the cart then pulling it.

There is an old saying that has been attributed to everyone from Plato to Ben Franklin that says "A democracy can only survive until the people discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury".

That discovery was made in the 60's and 70's. We've been on a downhill slide ever since.

[aretood2]

Then why is it in a marriage, i have never heard of a husband needing to sign off on the wife's getting of an abortion, unlike the many instances where the hubby needs the wife's ok to get snipped??
But i agree, it SHOULD be both's decision. It just seems that its not applied that way.



Or as I (and many on the GOPusa site) say, PINO (President in name only).


In other news, i saw this on Google news..

http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/15/89...bama-broadband

http://www.inflexwetrust.com/2015/07...come-families/

http://www.denverpost.com/politics/c...homes-internet

http://www.worldmag.com/2015/07/obam..._poor_families



So while millions of us who work have to pay for OUR internet, those who live on welfare/min wage, can now get it for free or highly discounted.

First off, i thought that is why we pay for libraries to HAVE internet areas. So those who don't have it at home can connect?

2nd, since when we started providing "Obama-phones" to "lower income" those of us who pay for our services saw a hike in what we pay to cover it.. Will the same thing happen here?

Lastly, what else will now get looked at to be made 'free' to "Lower income" people? Gas supply? Water? Power (electric)??
Don't we already subsidise that with our tax dollars in the form of welfare, section 8 housing etc?

We had a similar discussion on this a few pages weeks back, but is was concentrated on the issue regarding smartphones. Several pro's and con's were listed by different people. I think we did seem to agree that to a point, non-smart phones aren't an overreach for welfare given the realities of the modern world. It was basically a discussion on whether or not it was a necessity versus a luxury.

But since this mentions internet in relation to school work. I have to say that teachers are being given immense pressure to use internet and digital means outside of the classroom for education. Thus this need for low income kids to have internet and computer access at home beyond the occasional stop at the library. Though it is easier for urban kids to get to the library, rural kids don't always have that chance.

[garhkal]

As far as I can tell, it comes down to there being more people riding on the cart then pulling it.

There is an old saying that has been attributed to everyone from Plato to Ben Franklin that says "A democracy can only survive until the people discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury".

That discovery was made in the 60's and 70's. We've been on a downhill slide ever since.

Agreed. On another site where i am discussing this, someone says it "seems a good idea in principle' giving free internet at home for families with kids so they can learn quicker/better, or for the parent(s) to locate jobs easier (which i always was told, that's what the libraries internet areas are for).
BUT if its such a 'good idea' why only limit the free internet to families? What about all the single folk who are "poor". Why should such a thing be limited to the "poor" and what counts as being "poor".?

[Annoyed]

We had a similar discussion on this a few pages weeks back, but is was concentrated on the issue regarding smartphones. Several pro's and con's were listed by different people. I think we did seem to agree that to a point, non-smart phones aren't an overreach for welfare given the realities of the modern world. It was basically a discussion on whether or not it was a necessity versus a luxury.

But since this mentions internet in relation to school work. I have to say that teachers are being given immense pressure to use internet and digital means outside of the classroom for education. Thus this need for low income kids to have internet and computer access at home beyond the occasional stop at the library. Though it is easier for urban kids to get to the library, rural kids don't always have that chance.

And, just like cell phones, Internet connectivity and having a computer are LUXURIES. If someone wants these things, fine. They can go buy them. With their own money, not that of the taxpayer.

Perhaps the teachers should be more cognizant of the limitations of their classes when designing their programs. Don't require computers.

An awful lot of people have gone through the schools very successfully without them.

[garhkal]

And, just like cell phones, Internet connectivity and having a computer are LUXURIES. If someone wants these things, fine. They can go buy them. With their own money, not that of the taxpayer.

Perhaps the teachers should be more cognizant of the limitations of their classes when designing their programs. Don't require computers.

An awful lot of people have gone through the schools very successfully without them.

Plus iirc several years back (11-12 iirc) a study was done in Australia where a few thousand kids tested off against one another. Half had trained in the old school, pen and paper method, the other half in using the internet.
They were given the same tests, and the old school learners blew out the newer learners by a big margin.

YES it might open up more sources for where to get the info from, but imo it also trains you to NOT use your own brain to solve stuff (especially math problems)..

[Annoyed]

I'm not a fan of computer based education as a whole. It's far too easy to cheat.
If I'm an employer, and I have two similarly qualified candidates before me, one from a reputable "brick and mortar" school and another from an online university, I'm going to hire the brick and mortar educated candidate every time, for the simple reason that he is less likely to have used the Google machine to take all of his tests.

[Falcon Horus]

I don't know what you think kids do in school these days, but trust me it's not using google to make tests. And don't even try using wikipedia as a source unless you like to fail your classes.

In fact, I know that kids don't even know how to properly use Google in the first place. Their google-fu skills are severely lacking in places.