Remiel

I do not think anyone is saying that it is a stunt for him to be a member of the Green Party or seek office. It is the additional part of being Deputy Party Leader... after being in the party a mere six months.

I find it amazing how selective some people are about others being held to account for the consequences of their actions. Not that, you know, there is any system on Earth that can actually calculate the actual consequences. You would never know if one person getting killed also resulted in two others being saved.

In any case, while 98% is too high, I think I could manage just fine on 2% of Bill Gates net worth, .

The way I meant it though was this: a couple of drunkards in their late 40's or early 50's get in a fight, and both get charged with assault. One has a couple of shoplifting charges from his late teens. They are both sentenced, but one guy is eligible for parole after 1/3 of the sentence, and the other guy has to serve the whole thing... because of a much less severe crime from decades ago? THAT is what I am saying is just dumb...

Perhaps I missed that because I was looking through the last few posts at the time of the reply. So while it may have been inappropriately addressed to you, there are a great many people out there who should be asked that very question, because they clearly do support a ban.

We already have violent offender status. And a blanket three strikes rule is just dumb. Shoplifting should hardly count as a prior offense in this way when adjudicated grand theft or assault.

Let me give you an example of what I mean: Jeremy Bentham supposedly had terrible handwriting. Obviously, this had nothing to do with him being able o " express himself coherently " in writing, because if it had, none of us would have ever heard of him. In other words, it seems you are confusing the content and the medium.

Oh, it was with the connectivist theories of brain function in mind that I made my comment. That sort of stuff comes up in philosophy of cognitive science.

A friend of mine brought my attention to this article, and I thought it would be emminently relevant to repost the link here. It is a snapshot of a time that, frankly, I had not known to exist. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/27/once_upon_a_time_in_afghanistan

Well, one of the main reason, I imagine, is that people like to wishfully think that they too could be one of the wealthy. So they permit themselves to be hoodwinked to a greater degree than if they laboured under fewer such delusions (because it is a delusion for the vast majority). Another reason, perhaps ironic, is the Christian morality many of us have been brought up with. Taking from the rich, to a point, looks like stealing on the surface. It is only with a deeper understanding of the system that we realize that it is infact everyone else who enables the rich to become rich. Good ideas only take you so far without a horde of underlings to do the dirty work. Another is the fear that the rich can just go elsewhere at will, though we could in fact alter laws about the movement of money if we wished. This is actually, I think, related to Trotsky's belief that communism could only work if everyone was doing it. You need cooperation among nations if you are going to truly reinvent the relationship between the rich and the poor. Lastly, I think your question is a bit of a mistake. I think a better question would be, " Why do we not force wealthy people to take less of our money? " The battle is as much in defining who is taking from who right now as in who should take more from who. Or, another way to look at it would be, " Why do we not force wealthy people to pay more for the system that allows them to accumulte far more than they could possibly handle without our cooperation? " At close to the most basic level, private property is what you can protect with your own two hands. The wealthy are vastly favoured by a state which affords them such ample protection of all the lay claim to without demanding a ransom in return.

To be an to be not are two sides of the same coin. The statement, " America is the land of free, " is meaningless without knowing that there are some " not free " lands out there. America spent decades in the Cold War defining what it was not. America... the Great UnCommunism.

Do you not think that to ban a mosque from the site would be a huge insult to the memory of the Muslims who were killed by the hijackers on 9/11? Are they not American enough to be honoured or remembered or counted?

The fact is that language is not even the only way in which this phenomenon manifests: Good handwriting has been for a long time thought o be a sign of intelligence; it is not. And I have seen references to " the mouth-breather " crowd that stank of the same presumptuos bull...

And pray tell, how exactly would you define the USA were there no other countries to implicitly compare it to?

I am not sure how I feel about it... I think if I were to be afflicted with Alzheimer's I would, for one, take the idea from Memento of having the most important things I needed to know tattooed on me. It is the one record that I would never be able to misplace.

I am not that familiar with how diseases like Alzheimer's work, but would regrowing brain cells lead to being able to access the old memories, or would it be more the case that Alzheimer's, post-treatment, would still be like remaking yourself after amnesia? Of course, that question is only really relevant for those who are treated while having full blown Alzheimer's, rather than those treated when they have the early symptoms...

I kind of think that the Kurds should get their own state. They make up a disadvantaged or oppressed minority in at least three states, yet the lands they live in, to my knowledge, are basically contiguous. I think that minorities that like predominantly in one state, unlike the Kurds, at least are not split from other members of their group, so there are fewer structural barriers to carrying on as a people. However, if having a Kurdish state is such an important prize to them, I think it would be unwise to try and take more from the current countries than can be reasonably justified, such as the oil, because that would only jeopardize the chances of success.

To put it shortly, because I really think I should be hitting the sack, like, an hour ago: I do think we have the right to criticize other cultures. What is unwarranted, however, is that we should feel self-righteous about it because we do not happen to be doing the same thing anymore. Most moral relativism, I believe, is flawed, because it elevates " tolerance " to the status of being some sort of universal value, which is contradictory because most cultures do not contain a tradition of toleration (including ours, up until very recently), so it is kind of useless as a yard stick. I thin we would be better served by something like moral skepticism combined with pragmatism. Also, I roll my eyes every time I see the phrase " Clash of Civilizations. " Samual Huntington, as far as this particular theory goes, is a dufus. The generalizations he makes are mind-boggling.

Why would they care? If their intent was to get rid of them all, but they can only legally remove a few, the refusal of the others to do business with them would suit them just fine. In any case, I still do not see the need for Bonam's idea that you can dictate to other people what they may passively do on your property, outside of common standards of decency and etiquette. Why should the law, and the courts, give a damn what you think about the colour purple, speaking Japanese, listening to an iPod, wearing a sari, looking at the clouds, or any number of other completely innocuous activities that he claims they may dictate. How could it possibly be worthwhile to the police and the courts to waste resources enforcing such a right for people who have nothing better to do than nitpick over how other people live? I think there is a big difference between a right to demand compliance with reasonable rules, and a right to demand compliance with any rules. Remember, a lot of our ancestors came over here because the rich in Europe were (and are) so anal about their " rights " .

How often are businesses actually property owners anyway?

Dude... Then why did you link a picture of a woman not wearing a veil? In my exeriece, hijab is usually used interchangeable with headscarf, not veil. When I made the comment, that is what I meat. And I would bet that that is what the article I commented on meant as well.

What were the demographics like in 1962? Not racial or religious, but income, density, homelessness, single parents, and like social factors? Without that sort of information, you may as well be comparing two different countries. Also, it is a huge fallacy to believe that because reporting rates seem to be down from 1999, that that the reporting rates from 1962 in 1999 were also down, without statistical evidence to back up that assertion. Especially since 34% and 37% are statisticaly negligibly different.

I cannot attest from first hand experience, but at least in hot, dry climates, I doubt the burkha would be as uncomfortable (heat wise) as you think. After all, religion or no, stuff like that does not survive unless it is in some way practical. In the desert, everyone wore bulky robes, to keep the sun and sand off. In other words, they wore them because of the heat, not despite it. However, it is possible that they are terrible in a hot, humid climate like ours.

You are right of course. Clothing/culture are not racial characteristics. However, they often share the same demarcations. That is my whole point. I do not want cultural discrimination made into a useful pretext for racial discrimation. Also, I think part of the reason they are often conflated is because there is no commonly used word for prejudice based on culture (or religion, for that matter).

I was talking about a veil. Your example was of a headscarf. The two are on completely different levels.