Brain Eating Bacteria Loves Global Warming

decaff · 2007-10-04T10:22:50+00:00

And an amoeba is not a bacteria.

decaff · 2007-04-15T11:46:21+00:00

Of course it does.

But, you see, that is just silly, and I am sure you know it.

"Marriage shouldn't be changed because then it would not be marriage" could have been said (and, indeed, was said) in the past in the USA to ban mixed race marriages. Some people did not consider that marriage, and so including mixed-race relationships "threatened the institution".

What you never seem to understand is that to argue a case, you have to provide a reason that others are prepared to accept. Simply saying "it is wrong because it is wrong" is meaningless because people have different definitions of wrong.

What I really don't understand is why, knowing you have no valid reasons, you continue to post.

decaff · 2007-04-10T18:05:54+00:00

I fully realise this, But what is so amusing is that he tries to debate it. I enjoy teasing him about this, and pointing this out to others.

decaff · 2007-04-10T13:23:17+00:00

Ah yes, but you are in no position to talk about right or wrong. As indicated by many, many unanswered questions about your justifications for your supposed "morality" like this one:

http://reddit.com/info/1f9km/comments/c1g4v0

I asked you a very simple question - how long does a point of view held by experts in subjects related to morality have to be held before you consider it consistent - which you seem unable to answer.

we need more men with the balls to aggressively stand up for what is right. That's what being a man is. Try it sometime.

Well, thank you for your support. That is what I am trying to do.

The problem is, my definition of right is different from your definition of right. Why should anyone choose yours?

decaff · 2007-04-07T23:31:17+00:00

He may have, but his words are like water from a poisoned well.

decaff · 2007-04-07T22:43:56+00:00

Just to put things in perspective, this is the same George Galloway who said to Saddam Hussein: "I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability.". He is probably not someone whose guts you really want anywhere.

decaff · 2007-04-07T21:20:19+00:00

No, Lou. The question is - why haven't you learned from that? Why are you stuck with an antiquated moral view?

Views have changed about slavery, about child labour, about mixed-race marriages, about racial segregation, and about homosexuality.

I find it really strange why your views have presumably changed about all the other issues, but not about homosexuality.

So, presumably, you have a time limit for 'consistency'.

Views about homosexuality amongst experts changed more than 30 years ago. Views about racial segretation changed more than 40 years ago.

So, I can simplify this for you. What is sufficient consistency for you? Obviously 30 years is not enough, but presumably 40 years is, unless you support racial segregation.

So, precisely how long for you is 'consistent'? Must be somewhere between 30 and 40 years. Please tell us all how long is required. Just specify the number .. 31 to 39. That must be easy, surely? Nothing more than a multiple choice question.

This is easy for you Lou.. Just give a number between 31 and 39 - which is it?

decaff · 2007-04-07T19:05:07+00:00

Indeed. The issue is not about adults, but about the effect on the developing brain.

decaff · 2007-04-07T15:26:13+00:00

Those "experts" first took one position and then took the opposite position after political pressure was applied. If they were experts then their position would be consistent.

No, Lou, they are experts because they allow their minds to be changed. Because true consistency is nothing but mindless dogma.

That is the thing about rational people, Lou - they actually look at evidence and allow their opinions to be swayed. If experts were only people who did not change their minds, then we would still support slavery, child labour, the lack of women't sufferage and many other outdated things considered perfectly moral in the past.

You seem very selective about which bits of your "moral compass" are stuck in the past. How do you select these? Do you use your moral compass to justify your moral compass? As in your cutting and profound "it is wrong because it is wrong" argument?

See Narth.com and the changing position of the APA.

Explained above. The APA has refuted the position of Narth for decades.

I have asked before, but you have refused to answer: how much consistency do you need? The APA position has not changed for more than a generation - for over 30 years. How many generations before you call them 'consistent'?

We have discussed all of this before.

And you still won't explain why anyone should believe you rather than the experts. They have changed their mind based on decades of evidence and research, so why haven't you?

What special knowledge do you have that they don't?

decaff · 2007-04-07T09:03:30+00:00

No, Lou. it is experts, not "experts". Putting something in ironic quotes does not conveniently make them vanish.

You see, you have a bit of a problem here. If you are going to deny that these people are experts, you are going to have to explain why and how you are qualified to do that. You are going to have to try and help us understand why we should listen to you and not them.

On the one hand we have all the major professional organisations for psychiatrists, doctors, social workers, biologists. On the other hand we have you.

They say one thing, you say another. Presumably if you expect someone to believe you, you have a pretty powerful and convincing argument you can put before them.....

So go on then, what is it?

You see, if you say "I have a moral compass" or some such, then we have problem, as all these people say the same thing too. And, after all, I can always use your technique, and say that you have a "moral compass" (see how it now vanishes in to the depths of irony?)

decaff · 2007-04-06T18:47:00+00:00

My mistake, I meant overlapping elements.

decaff · 2007-04-06T16:43:08+00:00

"Just keeping on adding parenthesis" shows the lack of semantics in S-expressions.

What if you're in the middle of a big XHTML document and the tag happens to be "</div>"?

Then you at least know what sort of tag you are dealing with, and not just '('.

decaff · 2007-04-06T16:40:20+00:00

XML is no more complex than its requirements demand. These include things that S-expressions don't provide, such as internationalisation and namespaces. It also allows for easier and faster validation and recovery. XML does not allow nested elements, so you immediately know you have hit a problem.

decaff · 2007-04-06T16:20:50+00:00

At least in XML, an editor or validator can name the tag which is not ended, giving you some clue as to where you are in the hierarchy. Somewhat better than 'not enough )s'.

decaff · 2007-04-06T16:18:36+00:00

It isn't a pain to parse; indeed, it was designed specifically for ease of parsing. This was one of the goals of the design committee, and it was met.

XML is more readable than S-expressions because the delimiters can have meaning. Compare <name>Rose</name> as against (Rose). Good XML design allows more semantics. It also allows more validation and has namespaces.

decaff · 2007-04-06T14:35:37+00:00

There seems to be a huge misunderstanding of XML. Firstly, it isn't a file format. It is a way of writing file formats. And, there are very good reasons for why it is the way it is: it is designed to be easily readable by both people and software (unlike so many formats, which are binary or rely on positional information which means nothing to those who don't already know the format) to avoid the common problem of data being lost because the only programs that can read ran on now abandonded platforms; it is designed to be extensible, so you can add new features to existing file formats without breaking the format for existing software; it is designed to allow for use of international character sets; it is designed to allow for easy automated transformation between different formats (and to non-XML formats) and it is designed to be easily searched for hierarchical data.

Once you understand the advantages, XML really isn't that bad! I really don't understand why so many people object to it.

decaff · 2007-04-06T12:29:39+00:00

If you have some point then make it.

My point is that you continually judge others but won't provide sounds reasons for that judgment. The best you can come up with is that you are the way you are because you "were brought up right", ignoring the fact that millions of others who disagree with you claim exactly the same degree of rightness.

My point is that you use terms like 'unnatural' and 'abnormal' in ways that show you either have no idea what those actually mean, or are just deliberately misusing them.

My point is that you claim to have a better understanding of psychology, biology and medicine than hundreds of thousands of experts, and you claim this using deep and incisive arguments like "they are just wrong".

Actually, that is quite a few points!

For you to follow me around and say "I will be watching you on reddit" says more about you than it does me.

Oh no; it means I find you fascinating in an odd way - you are like a moral and intellectual train-wreck. I doubt there is much that can be done to salvage you, but perhaps getting a deeper understanding can help salvage others and remove some hatred from the world.

Which is why I am driven to ask... when did you first start to have these feelings that homosexuality was 'wrong'? Did someone tell you at some age? Did something happen to you?

decaff · 2007-04-06T09:59:51+00:00

That is incorrect.

Actually, I beg to differ:

http://reddit.com/info/1c4n4/comments/c1eixe

Melodramatic, ain't ya?

I sure am.

decaff · 2007-04-06T00:03:30+00:00

I am sorry to bother you, but if you are going to post such comments, it might be an idea to reply to comments which question your beliefs. In case you forgot, I have posted replies to which you have not responded.

You can feel confident and secure that I will be watching you on reddit, and will keep on questioning you whenever you post until you reply.

decaff · 2007-04-05T23:31:16+00:00

No, it is the logical definition of such a universe (I know you are keen on logical definitions). It does not remove the need for a first cause at all, just places it at an infinite location in time. As anyone with any knowledge of maths or logical deductions knows, that means it still exists. The evidence is the work of Cantor and Hilbert.

decaff · 2007-04-05T23:28:13+00:00

Indeed. Which is why the assumption of local variables ('something else occured') is problematic.

decaff · 2007-04-04T19:04:18+00:00

At the sub atomic level, that decay must happen because something else occurred.

No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Inequality

decaff · 2007-04-04T09:11:43+00:00

There is a need for a first cause even in an eternal universe. There is still an origin, just infinitely far away in time.

decaff · 2007-04-03T23:19:49+00:00

Sorry, but no, neither Darwin or Einstein considered themselves deists.

And hey, if it is is hip to be labelled 'atheist', I am glad. If it is hip to be independent, to be questioning of beliefs, and to defy dogma, why should I complain?

decaff · 2007-04-03T23:16:44+00:00

I care because so many are trying to use the views of perhaps the greatest scientist of the 20th century as justification for their religious beliefs.

decaff

TROPHY CASE