401. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257400 by Sciros on September 30, 2008 at 11:36 am

Yes and I'm still learning to be mean to people here so you need to stick around because I haven't yet mastered the art. I am getting better, though, which some folks can attest to ^_^

402. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257396 by Sciros on September 30, 2008 at 11:31 am

You'll get over it I'm sure...sticks and stones and all that!

Don't let his current avatar fool you. Sticks and stones can do very little to him, if anything. Words have a better chance of hurting him than sticks.

403. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257389 by Sciros on September 30, 2008 at 11:26 am

Ha ha! Who said women were the weaker sex? They have managed to get two of RD net's big hitters to "tender" their resignations in the space of 24 hours!

Yeah indeed. Well I for one ain't leaving, n00bz. No boob monst...err.. women are gonna intimidate me!

Whoa wtf @ thinksalot... I'm wondering if it's all one person posting under all those %think% names.

404. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257380 by Sciros on September 30, 2008 at 11:20 am

I am glad that you are proud of it.

That makes you an equal opportunity wanker.

Man you need to come up with better insults than that. Diacanu help a brother out.

405. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257286 by Sciros on September 30, 2008 at 9:30 am

However, it does depend whether someone is passively or actively in the bad company.

Well, it may affect how frequently your "hunch" on that person's statements turns out to be right. But you're not going to be 100% correct always guessing that everything submitted as fact is false, whether or not there is active involvement. (Well, ok in some cases you can be damn close, as is the case with Joe Morreale. But so far we've been able to verify that he's been dead wrong about 99.9999% of the time. Such is not the case with Fanusi -- he has not made too many factual errors, whatever his opinions, as far as I know.)

406. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257283 by Sciros on September 30, 2008 at 9:19 am

EDIT: Steve, I understand what you mean. Not having bothered to look into the nicedoggies site myself, I wasn't working to preserve anyone's credibility. What I was saying is that one's credibility should affect whether or not you are inclined to double-check statements submitted as fact as opposed to simply accepting them as fact. Which brings me to my response to root2squared...

root2squared,

The point I was getting at was, more precisely, to not assume that everything is false because it's uttered by someone you see as having little credibility. I would probably not care if all we discussed was Pokemon and Power Rangers, but when we have topics like Middle East conflicts, etc. then a "false negative" (assuming something isn't true when it is) carries a little more importance.

That is, if Fanusi says something, and John Doe assumes "oh he's just making crap up like always," and Fanusi isn't, then John Doe effectively walks away misinformed!

So, that is the pitfall one needs to avoid. Keep in mind that your conversation partner's judgment may be clouded, but don't let that cloud your own.

407. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257261 by Sciros on September 30, 2008 at 8:45 am

Anything else interesting going on in the world? Any economic crises looming?

Yes on the economic crises looming (look into the housing mortgage crisis). A government bailout failed to pass yesterday and the stock market took another dive.

In other news, Putin has decided to help Venezuela with a nuclear program. Fun times.

408. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257256 by Sciros on September 30, 2008 at 8:41 am

Lazarus, see my post above. It pretty much answers your question. We don't dismiss creationist arguments here because the creationists "associate themselves with a Church." We dismiss them on their merit (or lack thereof) because we can check if they hold up to independent scrutiny.

409. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257248 by Sciros on September 30, 2008 at 8:36 am

you can't insult me, I'm a lawyer

LOL I get it.

And now...

he will have to be called out and not ignored because he can sway others who may not be aware of his other persona

No one wants to protect you from those views, but I think the motivation is to prevent some of his extreme views from becoming accepted in the mainstream.

These are a couple of really shady things I've read over the last couple of days (there are others, but whatever). I see a logical disconnect here. The views people walked away with after talking to Fanusi a week ago, when you were unaware of nicedoggies, are still the same views. Do you see them as more dangerous now? His arguments and statements on RD.net are no more 'extreme' today than they were three days ago or a month ago. But now that you see his involvement on nicedoggies, you seem to think those arguments and statements more dangerous. It should be obvious that they're not; that they're exactly the same. If you argue that they're now more likely to be false because you feel he's lost credibility, then all it takes is a bit of diligence to discover whether or not they are false. Not much. Fanusi submits statements as fact as often as he does opinion, if not more so, and facts can be checked. They can be accepted or dismissed on their own merit, regardless of who sumitted them.

What you don't want to do is turn the nicedoggies "discovery" into an excuse for laziness -- "he's lost all credibility in my eyes so I'll just assume everything he submits as fact is false." Highly irresponsible if you think about it.

If a person loses credibility, then it would make sense to become inclined to do fact-checking much more frequently rather than take that person's word for it, but doing anything else makes much less sense to me.

I'm not sure why you can't see the nicedoggie site for what it is and why I don't want that site associated with me when I'm on this site.

Huhwhat? No site that others visit is "associated with you" while you're on this site.

410. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256948 by Sciros on September 29, 2008 at 7:16 pm

They cannot be responsible for inciting this dastardly and cowardly act.

(I said that whether the DVD made an effort to incite any violence was purely speculative but in many more words, but you edited your post so what I said is now redundant.)

In any case, we need to keep in mind that malicious idiots don't need much motivation to act like malicious idiots. They'll see a message even when it isn't there, if they are so inclined.

411. Blinded by a divine light

Comment #256684 by Sciros on September 29, 2008 at 10:55 am

...does that mean the squaw on the hippotamus doesn't equal the sum of the two squaws on the other two hides?
...
(I'm a mathematician if you had not guessed).

WHAT THE? I thought you were a zoologist!

412. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256678 by Sciros on September 29, 2008 at 10:28 am

our business (selling sexbots to lonely fellas) has totally tanked

You should look at a different demographic for your clientelle. May I suggest elderly women? Porn has soundly beaten them when it comes to competing for men's attention.

413. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256525 by Sciros on September 29, 2008 at 7:54 am

Wow Nairb you're a real douchebag. I mean seriously, you link to a mention of the attempted murder of a RD member's father, quote his response of "thanks for the prayers and condolences," and claim some sort of victory? It's too shameful for words. That goes for everyone who agreed. I don't care who it happens to, Al or Steve or Teratornis or IsThatClear, but if they have someone attack their family I'm not going to try and score a cheap moral victory off their reaction, especially when it's along the lines of "thanks for your condolences."

Also, there's a lot of people here who post a lot of utter shite (like any other open-domain forum). Just because I don't bother to contradict, condemn, or otherwise attack it doesn't mean I agree with it.

414. Ministers to Defy I.R.S. by Endorsing Candidates

Comment #255143 by Sciros on September 27, 2008 at 12:23 am

It's pathetic that 1 out of 4 people incarcerated throughout the world is an American. I think it's more of the individual states problem more than national though.

It's the criminalization of so many controlled substances that does it. The "war on drugs" puts a lot of people in jail that shouldn't really belong there. It's not pathetic so much as it is appalling -- the law, that is.

415. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255068 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 8:48 pm

And I still don't like your icon.

It's called an "avatar" for realz

416. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255042 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 5:41 pm

Shariah business practices don't exactly promote equal opportunities for women and men... so they probably shouldn't be allowed any more so than sexual discrimination in the workplace. So they still are bad mojo.

417. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #255013 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 3:27 pm

how can you choose to bring them into the world just to see if they can endure it?

Certainly that is a horrible reason. "To let God sort it out" is also a really bad reason, though it screams stupidity rather than pure malice. The woman described was stupid and malicious -- I am not excusing her.

But to bring a life into existence that, even though it suffers, finds its life worthwhile -- I just can't bring myself to see that as evil per se. We owe to our children the best quality of life we can afford them. I have not yet decided on what "minimum quality" (given that it's met by the parents' best effort as opposed to negligence) I feel personally comfortable with. I wonder if I am in a position to say "my idea of minimum quality should be yours as well."

This is an interesting topic.

418. Ministers to Defy I.R.S. by Endorsing Candidates

Comment #255006 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Well they can at least pretend to, yeah?

419. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #255004 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 3:11 pm

The point is what responsible thinking rational person would have even conceived the child?

Well, if one is confident that the child's life would be worth living to him/her because one would take great care to make that life as good as possible, then I can understand doing that. The failed experiments in Alien: Resurrection didn't get a lot of love and care, you know? So I don't think I'm talking about bringing children into that kind of existence.

Now, if a couple wants children, then I would think a very appealing alternative would be adoption of a child whose life otherwise would be far less fulfilling.

420. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254999 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Yes, I did.

I would have had trouble doing it -- the child would not be better off with an unemployed parent. Though I may have done it on plenty of other grounds anyway. People who are that crazy religious tend to give you more than enough reasons to replace them.

But this brings me back to what I said about how our judgement of "quality of life" is relative. At what point is life not worth living? For everyone this is different -- there are grandmothers and mothers suffering from horrible pain due to terminal illness who cherish every moment they spend with their children or grandchildren. I do not presume I can decide for a sick child whether his/her life is worth living to him/her.

Where I DO see a moral obligation is in ensuring that the child's life is as good as it can possibly be given the circumstances. If the fetus was not aborted -- if the child was born, well then there are some responsibilities that come with that decision.

421. Ministers to Defy I.R.S. by Endorsing Candidates

Comment #254991 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 2:39 pm

they're religious and I hate God

Atheists don't "hate God" any more than you "hate Silver Surfer." You can't really hate what you don't believe in.

What 'other side' is there to examine in this situation? That tax-exempt groups should be allowed to violate conditions of their tax-exempt status? That church and state should not remain separate?

422. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254987 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 2:25 pm

why they exist, and their purposes, I don't think that it is possible to deny that they have similar foundations.

Mitchell I didn't answer the "direct question" of "why math/logic exist" because I don't find it particularly valid. If you are talking about the way we express mathematical and logical concepts, then it the reason was to communicate these concepts, record them, and be able to think through them more easily. But the concepts themselves exist without us. The same as colors, atomic mass, etc. We call a surface that reflects a particular range of wavelength of light "green" but that property would exist regardless of our description of it. So what you are asking me seems akin to "why do colors exist?" Well... there isn't really an intent behind the property of being a particular color. As for the reason behind having words to describe the property -- well, I don't find that reason to be emotionally driven.

I don't consider "math" and "logic" to be simply human-made "tools" to deal with numbers and truth values. They are just as much definitions -- objective, concrete definitions.

The "goals" of math and logic are not emotionally based. They are to arrive at objective truths and to state objective truths.

As for them having foundations that can be reduced to emotional values, I don't think that's true at all. The foundations of math and logic are not emotional, and I've never seen a good case made that they are. On the contrary, I'm fairly certain that any mathematician/logician will tell you that the foundations of their fields are wholly objective.

423. Ministers to Defy I.R.S. by Endorsing Candidates

Comment #254973 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Hey DarwinsPitbull you should just put on an Obama mask and "leak" an incriminating sex tape. If you're going to give up your moral integrity may as well go all the way.

Anyway, if you violate tax-exempt status, you should lose it.

424. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254957 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Why does logic exist? Why does math exist? What are their goals, and why do we want to achieve those goals?

...the reason they operate as they do is because of our goals, and what we want to get out of them, which do include value judgments.

How math and logic operate has nothing to do with our goals and what we want to get out of them. Base-2 or base-8 or base-16, it doesn't matter. The word "two" is merely a representation of that many using an English word -- the conceptual amount referred to does not depend on the language used to express it.

Also, math and logic do not yield value judgements in the sense that I think you're meaning. (I assume you of course don't mean numerical values like "10" and "15", or boolean values like "true".)

When you use logic with "real events in the world," I'm going to assume you mean events the validity (or "truth") or which is not an entirely objective matter. In which case the logic used, even if valid, will lend no more truth to the conclusion than what you had to begin with. It follows that if your premises are emotional judgments, your conclusions (even if arrived at using valid logic) will be just as emotionally driven.

As for responding to every little thing, sometimes I feel like being "thorough." It usually means I'm bored :-/

425. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254947 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 1:12 pm

They are abstract. Like I said. They still have the same foundations. They would not exist without minds. Else who would have thought them up?

What are you saying here, exactly? What is "they"? Given what I was discussing, I have to assume you mean math and logic. 1 plus 1 would still be 2, even if there were no-one to say it. The Earth is round even if there's no-one to see it. These facts all would certainly be true even without minds.

I also disagree that they haven't any emotional basis.

They don't. Math and logic don't. They are completely neutral with respect to emotion.

Why else favor consistency, validity, coherence.

Math and logic don't "favor" them. You're anthropomorphisizing when you shouldn't be. There is nothing subjective about the validity of a logical statement. The definitions, the terms these fields deal with, are objective and concrete.

Are these not judgments of value?

Indeed they are not.

That they are "better" than their antitheses?

No. 1 plus 1 equals 2, not because that's "better" than 1 plus 1 equaling 3, but because 1 plus 1 equals 2.

Without a value judgment, which are emotional, how can one conclude this?

There's no question in math or logic as to what is "better". Only correct and incorrect, true and untrue. Even the question of truth being "better" than untruth is not one in the domain of math or logic.

Also, of course logic is based on the world, unless you are doing completely abstract formulas, but why can't an abstract moral calculus be done in the same vein?

I'm not sure what exactly you're saying here. (By the way don't use the word "calculus" here... it's a misuse of the word.) What do you mean by logic being "based on the world, unless you are doing abstract formulas"? And what do you mean by a moral judgment being made in the same way?

When you use logic and reason in the real world, then physical and emotional stimuli are what prompts your responses,

Not if your premises are objective statements and you want your responses to be correct.

and is what exists in your logical calculations. How is this different than the moral calculus I described?

It's different because what you described dealt entirely with subjective, emotionally-derived premises. Even if you apply logical operations to these premises, you will end up with a conclusion the truth value of which is no greater than the premises you started with.

So, the distinction that we arrived at was that moral conclusions do not have the same foundation as objective conclusions such as those in math or logic, but you seem to be saying quite the opposite!

426. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254937 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 12:42 pm

The foundations for the reasoning process are emotional and physical. Just as they are for logic, mathematics, and everything else our brain does.

Here I strongly disagree with the comparison. The foundation for mathematics and logic is not emotional whatsoever. Nor is it the same sense of "physical" as what we've been dealing with when talking about a "physical response to an action." The "truth" of logic and math exists outside of our minds -- whether we exist or not, 1 plus 1 equals 2. The same cannot be said for moral judgment of actions.

Reason itself is not about physical or emotional responses. That's not what my post meant at all. It meant that the reasoning you happen to be using to arrive at a moral judgment happens to be based what appears to be exclusively emotional/physical responses. The reasoning I use to arrive at what car I can afford to buy would not be based exclusively on such responses. Partially, perhaps, but not exclusively.

On as side note: why does the "plus" sign not work here? 1 1=2. See it disappears!

427. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254916 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 11:58 am

Simple, if I see you doing something that causes me unhappiness, or displeasure. Say, eating a rough onion (gross), I would not be justified in getting you to stop on this basis alone. I would from there, need to demonstrate that my suffering is greater from this, than yours would be if I forced you to stop, and I would need to demonstrate that a better solution, than making you stop, or witnessing it is not available.

Ok, I will try to put "emotional response" and "physical response" where appropriate in the above example and see what's left.

I assume your response to the onion eating is emotional rather than physical, but it doesn't make a difference since we're looking at both at the same time.

You have emotional response A to my action A. You then address whether emotional response A is stronger than emotional response B that would result from taking action B, whether it is weaker than emotional response C that result from action C, etc. until you have exhausted all possible actions.

Is that a misrepresentation? It doesn't seem so to me, but if it is please point at the inconsistencies.

If it is accurate, then I want to note that we are dealing with what looks like, exclusively, emotional and physical responses and their relative strength.

I do want to point out that emotional responses are not inherently irrational. Our emotions are conditioned, but the conditioning may turn out to be very rational once you examine it.

So, the foundation is where the reasoning takes off from, but nothing can be justified on this basis alone. You need to take everything into consideration, and demonstrate the best possible option available.

What I'm concentrating on at the moment is the... material this reasoning deals with. You talk of dealing with suffering, which is an emotional/physical response.

428. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254910 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 11:46 am

Bonzai,

There is a high chance that the child, severely deformed and sick, would consider it torture to live like that,--it may not; as you said, but we can't know before.

I want to concentrate on two words in that sentence: "high chance." What basis do you have for this qualification?

Anyway, without knowing what that child is thinking, and without knowing whether it really wants to die all the time or whatever, I can't say I can make a judgement call on how "ethical" it was on the part of the parents to give birth to and raise that child. And so, I refrain from doing so. I have seen enough children who look pretty "messed up" being wheeled around by their parents, but looking at those children I have no way of telling you whether they find nothing redeeming in their existence. And since I don't, I don't judge the decision to let those children come into being.

I have no moral qualms either way, to make it clear. Abortion I have no problem with at all, and letting a child be born I have no problem with either. I've yet to think ill of parents who chose either of those paths, given that if they went with birth they actually took the best care of their child they could.

429. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254899 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 11:22 am

Mitchell, I wan't confusing foundation and reasoning. I used both words, but I'm fairly certain I used them appropriately (unless you point out where I did not).

Given what you've said about emotional/physical responses not being reasons themselves -- can you give me an example that precisely illustrates your point?

I'm always looking for weaknesses, of course, but in doing so, if we find none, that only lends more credibility to the argument.

430. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254886 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 11:08 am

Which involves a calculus of pain and suffering, happiness and pleasure, to decide which option maximizes the latter, and limits the former.

Hmmm... those are physical and emotional responses. So... now we are going down the path of measuring how an action affects those responses. Does that not seem like those responses are even more so at the core of our final outlook than I even thought?

Oh by the way, you can't use "calculus" in this sense. What you're looking for is "modeling" or "calculation" or something along one of those lines. The word "calculus" isn't that flexible :-/

431. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254883 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 11:05 am

Bonzai,

The "quality of life" argument -- it's all an appeal to our emotion, and I should point out it's an emotion the child may not necessarily share. Would I rather live as a squirrel than not live at all? I think so. Hmm... that may not get the point across at all....

Remember the quote that Richard mentions often, as one he'd like to have read at his own funeral? About how those of us who got to live are infinitely more lucky than all the billions who will not get that chance because they will simply not come into existence? In a way it's very abstract, but it is an expression of the strongest appreciation for life -- whatever its quality. I think that if that sentiment is felt by any person for even a fleeting moment -- that it is good to have been born into this world than never having existed at all -- then that person's life is not a "wasted" one from their perspective.

Whatever you may think of that outlook, I see it as anything but selfish.

I'm very, very pro-choice by the way. I just wanted to put a bit more perspective on the whole subject of "quality of life."

432. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254872 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 10:50 am

There should be a Microsoft (TM) program that determines using a lot of itty-bitty cameras whether a fetus is going to be ugly past a certain threshold X, and if so, issue a governmental order to abort it.

EDIT: I'm just being silly, not trying to make any point.

EDIT 2: If you disagree, then instead of itty-bitty cameras let's go with moderately-sized cameras. I'd be cool with that change.

433. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254869 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 10:48 am

Mitchell (regarding post 701): I am inclined to agree without having thought about it much. So... I'm now thinking about it as I type...

Well, ok, if it's inappropriate to place an action on our personal scale of "bad---good" based on our physical and/or emotional responses, then let's look at alternatives. I'm working from the premise that ethics aren't really objective... which means that there's subjectivity involved at the core of anyone's ethical system. (Even if one chooses to express the "goodness value" of an action based on numbers, like how many lives it saves, that choice is a subjective one. Anyway, with that out of the way...) So, what makes me, for instance, see property theft as unethical? Well, it's not like the action itself elicits any emotional response or physical response. It's someone taking an item and moving it from place A to place B or whatever. However, there is an emotional response when I think of the victim of that theft. That victim will be sad (emotional response there) to lose that property. It may be something the victim needs in order to stay healthy, so then the victim experiences a physical response. I empathize with those responses in turn, and therefore the theft, by virtue of its effect, elicits an emotional response from me. An unpleasant one. So, even though I can measure the victim's loss in numbers (property value) and maybe other ways, I think the reason theft gets put close to the "bad" than "good" extreme on my morality scale is my emotional response. If I were for some reason happy about the action -- Robin Hood steals from the corrupt rich and gives to the oppressed poor, for example, and I like Robin Hood and his thievery makes me happy -- then I probably wouldn't find it unethical. So... why is that? (Sorry about this whole stream of consciousness thing I got going.) Well... the corrupt rich would still feel sad, but I guess the poor who get Robin Hood's spoils would in turn be quite happy. And because I choose to value their happiness over the victims' sadness (and that's honestly all I think I consider... why they're happy or why they're sad seems to lose all relevance)... I am in turn happy.

So, I'm wondering whether in the end I do go by emotional response. The emotional response is of course conditioned by a lot of things, but I am wondering whether, once conditioned, much other reasoning becomes relevant or redundant. I'm not sure... but it's starting to seem to me like emotional response plays a strong role in any case.

434. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254858 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 10:30 am

Hey, then you could say "yes" or "no" for him :-P

435. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254856 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 10:25 am

Mitchell you seem to have issues getting your points across, well, way too often. You'll probably agree. So, just to make sure I read your last post right...

My argument against thinking something is ethical or not on a physical reaction to an experience, instead of a reasoned response based on evidence is simply the absurd conclusions that one can come to based on such a criterion.

So you are saying that you disagree with the idea of deciding whether something is ethical based on the physical/emotional response it elicits. "It's evil because it makes me gag." Something like that, right? And the reason you disagree with that idea is that one can reach some... questionable conclusions if the premises are simply those physical/emotional responses.

436. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254850 by Sciros on September 26, 2008 at 10:12 am

Either that or he's out somewhere working towards his FBI/CIA/SAS/ninja placement.

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

Comment #254551 by Sciros on September 25, 2008 at 10:34 pm

Yes... but it's still illegal. Which means tough bananas to anyone who acts like it isn't.

I think that's the wrong attitude to have.

It's not an attitude. That's the distinction I'm trying to draw. I may have done a poor job of stating that if something is illegal, you can't pretend it isn't. It's still illegal, the way even if you pretend Earth is flat it remains round. What you can do is acknowledge that something is illegal by law, and then show that it is unjustly illegal at that. Then you can actually fight the law.

By pretending the enemy doesn't exist, you're not defeating him. Especially if the enemy in question is a law. It won't go away by being broken. You must acknowledge the enemy in order to attack him.

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

Comment #254543 by Sciros on September 25, 2008 at 9:45 pm

See WilliamP, the distinction I want to make clear is "validity" is not what people are really arguing when they say the law is irrational/fair/whatever. They're arguing its rationality/fairness/etc. respectively. It's still as valid a law as any other law.

It's actually important to keep semantics in order when discussing issues to do with legality.

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

Comment #254532 by Sciros on September 25, 2008 at 8:44 pm

Breaking an unjust or irrational law is perfectly acceptable, because a law has to have a reasonable basis in order to be valid.

What exactly does "valid" mean here? One law is as "valid" as the next as far as the government and its law enforcement is concerned. The basis of the law, reasonable or not, is irrelevant when discussing whether or not the law is binding on everyone it applies to, because it is binding regardless.

It is important to note the distinction between the "validity of a law" from the eyes of an individual with relation to that individual's moral values, and the power that law holds on that individual regardless of his/her moral values.

There are objective reasons for rape and murder to be illegal. There are no objective reasons for eating during Ramadan while being non-Muslim to be illegal.

Yes... but it's still illegal. Which means tough bananas to anyone who acts like it isn't.

I'm just a bit confused -- are you saying this in defense of the people who got in trouble, or simply attacking the law?

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

Comment #254503 by Sciros on September 25, 2008 at 7:34 pm

As for Dubai, I fear the Emir of Dubai is shitting money down a hole. Building palm islands (and the ridiculous "the world" project) and 7-star hotels will not make for a sustainable future. The novelty will wear off eventually for the select few who can afford to visit. And financial centres come and go too - bankers are a fickle bunch and follow the money.

The Emir is a fool who doesn't realize he is no match for my SPORT UTILITEE VEHICLE. I will drive it so much I will personally heat up the Earth by like three degrees and sink his man-made islands like so much raw sewage.

Seriously though, they're gonna go. I'm gonna chuckle, too.

441. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254502 by Sciros on September 25, 2008 at 7:32 pm

If a woman has a child and the man did not want the child, then the man and the child, once fully grown, will engage in mortal combat on a cliff on a stormy night and it will be all anime-style and shit.

That would be the law if I were king. You'd think twice about having kids then, hahah!

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

Comment #254499 by Sciros on September 25, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Why should they? They're not Muslim. Further, the UK is a "Christian country" but I rather doubt you would say that non-Christians in the UK should abide by Christian practices.

Why the double-standard?

It's not. The UK doesn't write specifically "Christian practices" into law. Were it to, one would have to abide by them in the UK.

This is all such a basic issue I'm really confused what's really being debated. The law is retarded, but it's the law. You can argue that the law is a stupid, unjust law -- the way people argue about stupid and unjust laws in their own countries (DMCA, anyone?). You can argue that the source of the law is bullcrap and that's why the law itself is idiotic. Arguing that one shouldn't be obligated to follow laws one disagrees with is just bizarre because then they're no longer laws but merely "suggestions." Hopefully no-one is arguing that.

443. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254409 by Sciros on September 25, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Hey, you should've exploited that opportunity. You know what they say, once you go black you never go back.

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

Comment #254408 by Sciros on September 25, 2008 at 4:19 pm

I find the problem to be Dubai is a fucking theocracy. Laws should serve to protect the rights of the people. That is not the purpose laws serve in a theocracy. There, they protect the way of life prescribed by religious scripture, which doesn't exactly look out for the people's rights.

This incident merely illuminates that a tiny little bit.

445. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254405 by Sciros on September 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Gregg I've got a heck of an imagination and I hate those contests because I can easily win but in a way I really lose since like I said, I don't like talking about unpleasant things.

446. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254402 by Sciros on September 25, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Oh, also from what I've heard, watching Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle is considered up there. I've avoided finding out the hard way.

447. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254400 by Sciros on September 25, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Yeah I have heard that as well... and from what I've seen I agree.

Maybe a bullet to the stomach is worse. I forget. But at some point I looked at a "painful stuff ranking" for something and of course there wasn't anything batshit crazy there but just "usuals", and that was near the top. Let's not worry about it, I don't like talking about unpleasant things haha

448. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254395 by Sciros on September 25, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Sciros, the anaesthetics wear off after a while. The the fun begins...

No doubt.

Talking of c-sections, that screws up everything for a while - can't sit up, back pain as there is no frontal support when standing, etc, etc..

Yeah, that's part of what I mean by the "enough other things to worry about."

I have to say reading some of the rebuttals, an Oxford degree doesn't seem to be as good as they say it is nowadays.

What about Cambridge? I'm still paying off that investment, heh.

449. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254386 by Sciros on September 25, 2008 at 3:49 pm

I subscribe to the Carroll Burnett school of thought, (I paraphrase) "Until a man can shove a basketball through his mouth he's not allowed an opinion on the relative pain level of child birth."

From what I've been told, a bullet to the stomach is comparable in terms of pain level to "all-natural" childbirth.

But that's, um, why there are anesthetics involved? Plus there are many c-section births and there the woman is also obviously anesthesized.

If I were a pregnant woman (I'm not; I'm a dude) the pain of the birth wouldn't be all that high on my list of concerns to be honest. There are enough other things to worry about.

450. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253556 by Sciros on September 24, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Nah, I just need to practice in order to keep my "asshole skills" sharp. You never know when they'll come in handy.

I can agree that I'm being too hostile in my responses. I even started off that way in this case, which I admit is a bad idea because it puts folks on the defensive.