1. Obama will move to veto Bush laws

Comment #281399 by Samir Nayanajaad on November 10, 2008 at 9:24 am

I just hope he doesn't bring back the assault weapons ban. Anyone know for sure where he stands on that? I've heard that he will and that he won't, my hunch is that he will bring it back.

2. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #279711 by Samir Nayanajaad on November 6, 2008 at 9:39 am

When the rabbi was asking about where freewill comes from I thought of 2 quotes from John Paul Satre and I think they express where Hitchens was coming from. (I hope I got these right)

“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.”

and

“Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you.”

3. Russian woman put on trial in Dubai for drinking juice in public

Comment #254250 by Samir Nayanajaad on September 25, 2008 at 1:38 pm

I have to agree with Greybishop on this. He said what I was thinking.

Also the great teapot meh is pronounced like meth with out the "th" sound and it means that you are indifferent about a subject, sort of like shrugging your shoulders only in a word.

4. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225373 by Samir Nayanajaad on August 6, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Oh J Mac we wouldn't have to worry about being dragged around shopping because you see we would also treat women "accordingly." (read subjugate them and take away any rights and liberties they have, and make them only do what a man tells them to do) You know because thats what God told Adam he could do so its got to be ok.

5. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212054 by Samir Nayanajaad on July 16, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Al,

I know that stuff is not used by criminals, I just thought it interesting just how much you can legally own.

6. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212017 by Samir Nayanajaad on July 16, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Yes there are plenty of ways to get whatever illegal items into the US, and thats why bans on guns or anything for that matter wont work (or at least work as much as some think it will).

One thing that shocked me is how easy it is to legally get your hands on some things that I dont know what any person would have a need for, such as silencers.

I don't know how to create a hyper link in these forums(edit I guess I do now) but check out the class 3 link on this site and see what all you can own legally in this country, depending on your state.

http://www.impactguns.com/store/

7. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #211986 by Samir Nayanajaad on July 16, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Al, I agree with this needing to be a national issue, thats the only way it could stand a chance at working.

However I wouldn't differentiate (a lot) between a revolver and an auto handgun. I think the biggest reason handguns are used in crimes so much is due to they are easy to conceal and they are easy to carry. Those are two (not the only ones however) major selling points both for legal owners and criminals. So I wouldn't differentiate between the two much if at all.

Also do you think if handguns were put into a class 3 like status, would illegal imports jump up?

8. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #211885 by Samir Nayanajaad on July 16, 2008 at 11:22 am

Well I have been reading along with this and Ill throw my 2 cents in.

Al seems to be ok with a little more restrictions on hand guns because they are more of a problem than the hunting rifles and other types of guns.

Also, somehow curbing the ability of criminals to obtain an illegal weapon seeing how it is illegal weapons used in an illegal act (such as drug dealing armed robbery and such)that compose most of the violence with guns, is what Al wants to do. Target the problem as opposed to trying to blanket the whole issue.

Now this is just my thoughts on the matter but, maybe this is something that can be discussed with more stats and evidence. I would think classifying handguns in something like a class 3 weapon is might be effective.

For those that don't know US gun laws a class 3 weapon is usually any gun that is fully automatic. I think there are other weapons that fall into this category as well but that's not too important.

In many state it is legal for a person to own a class 3 weapon. It is also legal in many states for a person to modify a semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic rifle. But to do any of this you need to pay the ATF good chunk of change and fill out quite a bit of paperwork.(also you can't sell the gun to anyone without them going through all this too)

So basically it's legal to own a class 3 weapon, it's just a pain in the butt to do it.
I think if we did something like this with handguns it could work, however, we would also have to somehow reduce the illegal weapons trade for it to work at all. I would venture a guess that if handguns became more costly to own (both in price and in restrictions in purchasing) the number of handguns produced would drop due to less demand. This would also reduce the supply of handguns in the illegal market (if we can prevent them from being illegally imported) and possibly reduce the amount of crime committed that a handgun is used in.

That's a lot of ifs and speculation there but, I just wanted to throw an idea out there for Al because he said he wanted some on how to possibly reduce crime without totally killing the 2nd amendment. So Al, what would you say to possibly heavily restricting handguns like class 3 weapons are? Do you think that could work granted we greatly reduce guns that are illegally imported?

9. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207251 by Samir Nayanajaad on July 9, 2008 at 11:47 am

I just can't resist the urge to post this pic any longer...

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g87/samir_nayanajaad/two_ply.gif

Edit: can't seem to link it right but theres the url that you can view it at, need to read how to do that in this forum.

10. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206592 by Samir Nayanajaad on July 8, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Riley, just to play devils advocate for a moment, here are a few comments to think about.

You say god (and god here that I will talk about is not supposed to be the christian god or jewish god just a name Ill be using to identify the higher power, creator, sky fariy, thing, idea, etc. we are talking about) should start things off by telling us s/he will always directly communicate with us.

However, even if s/he did that it is still up to us to decide if that voice in our head or vision we had is indeed that of god or maybe you just ate the wrong mushroom.

So, even by god telling us directly what to do it still doessn't remove the resopnsability from our sholders on what to do or not to do. We still have to decide.

Next about god even communicating with us. I would say that we (humans) are a little more complex and smarter than say a fly. Now have you ever tried to communicate with a fly?

Sometimes you just want them to stop buzzing around your car trying to get out through the back windshield. It would be so easy if you could just point to the open side window and it know, "Oh this other thing is pointing to an open window, how nice of it to show me the exit."

But no, you have to swat at it and basicaly scare it to the exit. You have to communicate with it in a way it understands, by acting like you are attacking it.

The point im getting at is maybe god has a bit of troubble communicating the things s/he wants to so things getting lost in translation could be expected.

Although I do agree that if god did have a "counterfit proof" way of communicating with us it would be silly to think god would use any other means.

11. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205635 by Samir Nayanajaad on July 7, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Well it looks like its Wikipedia ftw. Thanks again decius.

12. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205627 by Samir Nayanajaad on July 7, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Thanks decius, other than wikipedia is there any other way I could quickly find reputable journals about other topics as well? Something like a google for scientific journals would be nice.

13. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205615 by Samir Nayanajaad on July 7, 2008 at 2:09 pm

I have a question/comment that may be a bit off topic but, still related.

I am also agnostic about the global warming issue. However, my agnosticisms comes from not having read any information that I know is reliable, good information.

With all the media hype around this I can't tell if what I find is good research or just BS. I mean some of it is obvious but, I'd like to find some stuff I know is peer reviewed.

So my question is where can I find some good information about this? Also for future reference how can I tell if an article about any research has been peer reviewed and is reliable research?

14. Darwinists for Jesus

Comment #196323 by Samir Nayanajaad on June 19, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Not relevant to the discussion but, I'm in Springfield now. If you want to see some real funny stuff that goes on here with the the fundies take a look at this,
Brother Jed

Edit
I tried to link it to a search result but it didnt work. Just search youtube for brother jed at missouristate for more of Brother Jed its funny stuff

15. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192581 by Samir Nayanajaad on June 13, 2008 at 1:01 pm

About the whole why can't you have a nuclear bomb under the right to bear arms. I think it just boils down to safety of others, and the line of where your rights stop and another's begin.

Its not like the average John Doe is going to have the proper facility to house highly radioactive material without causing all kinds of health risks to neighbors and other people. Not to mention if it were to be set off the very long lasting after effects that occur with a nuclear bomb

Its not that hard to properly store a gun and some ammo, or hell a sword, catapult, or many other weapons. Also the the after effects (or is it affects I get them mixed up all the time) of the use of these weapons are far less damaging to other people. (assuming they are not on the receiving end of the weapons)

So I think when it comes to arms and what is legal to have vs. illegal its a matter of where society wishes to draw the line of where one persons rights end an another's begins. Where does a weapon start to infringe on another's rights namely their right to be safe and free from harm.

16. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188789 by Samir Nayanajaad on June 4, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Mitchell, could you give a general idea of what your ethical base for veganism is? Like will it be, utilitarian, Kantian, egoism, or a mix of a many.

17. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188768 by Samir Nayanajaad on June 4, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Podaar,

I agree with your assessment of where animal rights people are coming from, and in many ways agree with them. I don't think we should all become vegans but, at least kill the animals in as a humane way as possible. No need to torture the things before you kill them, besides if you don't kill an animal quickly it ruins the taste of the meat.

I've had some nasty tasting venison because (I have no proof of this just my hunch) when the deer was shot it didn't die quickly but struggled and had to be shot many times. During this struggle I think adrenalin was released due to the fight or flight response and it gives the meat a bad taste.

18. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188747 by Samir Nayanajaad on June 4, 2008 at 1:27 pm

I don't know if this will help the discussion or just hinder it more, but here it goes.

I would say any species would hold other animals of the same species with a higher regard because of the same reasons a brother should hold a higher regard for his sibling than say a 2nd cousin, genetic relatedness.

I could be wrong in saying this, and anyone with more information on this than myself is welcome to correct me or add to what I am saying. I would say that any human is more genetically related to any other human more than he/she is related to say a dog, cat, or deer. Therefore our selfish genes tell us that we should value other humans more than another animal of another species because it is those selfish genes that have been able to survive the best and natural selection favor.

I hope at least the gist of what I am trying to say has gotten across, but I am not the best at putting my thoughts into words so take the above with a grain of salt.

19. Altruism in social insects is a family affair

Comment #186426 by Samir Nayanajaad on May 30, 2008 at 9:20 am

Re briantibbs

To get right to the point kin selection works only if there is a high relatedness between siblings. Wilson thought that if the queen were to mate with many males it would reduce the relatedness among the siblings to a point that kin selection could no longer be a workable explanation for the siblings taking care of other siblings as opposed to going out and rearing there own young.

So the researchers needed to find out if indeed queens were monogamous(therefor keeping the relatedness between siblings at such a level that kin selection would still be a workable solution)
or if they indeed mated with many males thereby they would need to develop another workable solution that factors in that siblings are not quite as related as once thought.

Hope that helped

20. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186409 by Samir Nayanajaad on May 30, 2008 at 8:58 am

FF you said, "...a company has never gained monopoly status without government assistance."

Look up Standard Oil

Edit

I did it for you even

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_oil

21. Altruism in social insects is a family affair

Comment #186097 by Samir Nayanajaad on May 29, 2008 at 2:46 pm

"By challenging something that we have based all our understanding on for 45 years, Wilson has forced us all to examine the theory again and assess the logic of the arguments."

By far the most uplifting thing I have read today. Oh how I wish more people could do this with other aspects of their life. (that is examine their ideas and assess the logic, or lack there of, of their ideas)

22. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #179159 by Samir Nayanajaad on May 12, 2008 at 7:47 pm

I may be a bit confused I don't mind being wrong. I have a business stats book I can look this up in to get myself straightened out.

Although I think what the guy doing the interview was talking about is how some people would put meaning on that event beyond just probability. Like they may think 6 is there "lucky" number and that because 6 blacks hit in a row its some sort of sign that they need to bet big now or whatever.

23. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #179052 by Samir Nayanajaad on May 12, 2008 at 1:04 pm

To AtheistJon and gnomead but I suppose mostly to gnomead.

In the case of the roulette question it would be better to bet on red after seeing 6 blacks in a row. True the probability is 50 50 given 2 choices but the odds are in your favor that a red will hit.

Probalility and odds are two different things yet closely related. A simple way to look at it is probability is just a measure of how likely an event is to happen where as odds are a measure of how likely an event is to happen over x number of successive events. Thats why odds are written 1:10 that reads as one in ten meaning once in every 10 times a given event should occur.

So to bring this back to the roulette I will just make up some numbers to show you. Yes on the 7th spin the ball would be just as likely to hit black as red (50 50) However, if you take it as all 7 spins put together you could say the odds of hitting black all 7 time are 1:100 (i just pulled that number out of thin air I don't know what it would be) This means that if you spun the wheel 7 times, 100 times in a row(so 700 spins) one time out of the set of 100 the ball would hit black all 7 times.

So yes in a way its 50 50 but in another way its not.