Callie

I really like EV Nova, but I think it's biggest flaw is that a quest will send you to planet A, but arriving at planet A only has a certain chance of bringing up the next dialogue. I've sat for ten minutes sometimes repeatedly docking at a planet so I can get a new set of orders.

I would imagine that few people have Malthusian ideas in consideration when they choose not to procreate (and some of us might even reject Malthusian ideas!), or even have relationships at all. Some people are asexual, but most people who live like that have a sex drive just like everyone else. I think you're taking the wrong approach with how you're looking at it.

Those dates work for me.

It's not illegal in Arizona to have an infant in the front seat of the car? Without a seatbelt or other form of restraint?

Hate to say this, but I realize now that I absentmindedly submitted an inaccurate calendar. I resubmitted it (I'm not done with class on Friday until 8:15 PM EST). My apologies.

Done, although I should note that I didn't notice the calendar until Rowen posted, since the calendar was included in an edit.

Being a member of a minority doesn't mean you can't hold subconscious (?) prejudices against said minority, mostly because those prejudices are prevalent in the wider culture, even if they aren't overt. Additionally, prejudice need not be limited to race. A middle class black officer can discriminate against a poor black driver. An officer's judgement can also be affected by the prejudices of his or her coworkers. Originally Posted By: Lilith given that people are already routinely pulled over for Driving While Black under the current system, how do you propose to give police even more discretion without it being abused Nobody can best Lilith when it comes to improv satire.

I tend to lean toward the idea that removing nuclear weapons would make international foreign policy worse. Nukes act as a deus ex machina* in a way, but terribly so. Edit: *As in, screw it, everyone dies now!

This is probably why I left my sanity here and mostly stayed put: discussions about minor policy issues can digress into philosophical debates and vice versa. Fluffy turtles! What's fun about philosophy is that my views don't fall neatly into any main philosophical doctrine. I guess you could call me a mathematical nihilist objectivist atheist, but that's too verbose and mostly incoherent. Even as a theist I was still mostly nihilist (i.e. the Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes, which starts off by declaring that "everything is utterly meaningless"). -- As to the original topic: I'm pretty sure my views are exceptionally unusual so I'm mostly musing here. I don't think the government has any vested interest in preventing people from harming themselves, as long as said action does not directly* harm anyone else; I don't agree with seatbelt or helmet laws. If a person's actions directly harm someone else then said action should obviously restricted, but this should also generally apply to actions which have a high relative probability of harming someone else. In my opinion the risk incurred by texting while driving warrants a restriction, because the probability of causing harm increases dramatically. The point at which an action's probability of causing harm warrants restriction is arbitrary, so that argument cannot be applied equally to all actions. I know I can't do so much as lift a water bottle out of the console without diverting some of my attention, and I don't believe people who claim this isn't the case while texting. *I'm using the word "directly" here for simplicity; I don't think government should be limited to interfering strictly in cases of direct harm, but expounding upon that would require a much longer explanation.

Humans may be intelligent, but we still express a wide range of animalistic behaviors and many of our interactions boil down to instinct. One way humans establish dominance is through arguments, and like other animals, "winning" might just mean being able to yell louder or get the other person to back off. Presenting facts as a form of reasoning is a very recent development, so using logic against someone trying to establish dominance is like using logic against an enraged grizzly bear. Even highly intelligent people arguing based on logic probably won't convince anyone in a single argument. As humans, we're prone to things like confirmation bias and group polarization. The more informed someone becomes, the greater the likelihood that he or she will become emotionally invested in an issue, and the more partisan and extreme that person's views become. We develop an Us vs Them kind of mentality; we characterize the other side as consisting of bad people. At times we do that even when we agree on basic principles. For example, most people agree that we should work to eliminate poverty, but they disagree as to how to go about doing that. As said former bigot, it's highly unlikely you'll persuade someone by a single internet argument. People can change their minds but it often takes time. I think humor (satire especially) is one of the best forms of persuasion because understanding it requires higher levels of thinking. Humor can still be offensive to some, but a person probably won't be as angry with you if they're laughing. The main thing to avoid, really, is something I noted above, and something that pretty much everyone is guilty of, and that is to assume that someone holds an opposing viewpoint on account of being a bad person, or simply being stupid.

Originally Posted By: Harehunter It find it interesting that you might consider me an extremist. I thought I had made a specific note that my statements were confined to only the extremist factions. I am fully aware that such extremists represent only a miniscule percentage of the population. Again, I find that I did not present a complete interpretation of my terms. My posts are already quite lengthy, and I have expressed my interpretations of these terms at length in the past. I see that I did not properly clarify, so I understand why you thought I was calling you extremist, but I intended to refer to people who would actually want Israel "wiped off the face of the earth."

And more importantly: extremely flammable. This can happen with laptop or cell phone batteries even. Lithium fires cannot be extinguished by normal means.

That title is rather misleading.

Originally Posted By: Harehunter ...most arabs would love to see wiped off the face of the earth. The only people who say anything like that are the rare brand of extremist. This idea stems from neoconservatives wildly misinterpreting (or simply fabricating) statements from countries like Iran. Iran has said they would like the Israeli regime eliminated, which is not even close to saying they'd like Israel wiped off the face of the earth. The US often calls for regime changes, so it's definitely not threatening language. Also, I'm not sure why you're using the term "arab." "Arab" is not the same thing as "muslim": the former is an ethnicity, the latter is a religion. Indonesia is one of the most populous nations in the world and predominately muslim, but its citizens are certainly not arab.

I think it'd be pretty cool to alter space-time with my mind. I'm not sure what to call that though...relativistic psychokinesis?

Oh hey, I'm with the plurality.

Because no one mentioned anything to that effect on Facebook, I had no idea it was Valentine's Day. Huh

I'm not convinced that Santorum's wins last night will even matter that much. Maine will announce it's caucus results on the 11th, and Santorum will probably place 4th there (Romney will probably win). After that the next contests are Arizona and Michigan on the 28th, and I doubt Santorum will get any sizable portion of the vote in those states. That also gives a lot of time for his opponents to attack him. Maybe he'll pick up a few red states on Super Tuesday, but that still leaves Romney far ahead in delegate count.

From an economic standpoint--a free market requires a free flow of labor. People generally aren't going to immigrate to a country unless they see a reasonable chance of improvement to their economic situation, although some immigration is a result of oppressive regimes and/or war in their respective home countries. Many immigrants will work cheaply, even for less than minimum wage (under the table). Restricting immigration creates a shortage of labor, which forces employers to find a supply of labor elsewhere.

I think we're actually agreeing completely here. Applying for citizenship should require a simple form and not much else, as opposed the impossible application currently in place. The sheer number of noncitizens is a symptom of immigration policy, which a separate but related issue.

Originally Posted By: Goldenking I'm going to reject all of the arguments presented in favor of voter registration so far as necessarily disenfranchising. Why is it that there is a bias against letting noncitizens vote in the United States? At the point at which there are governments within the United States that require aliens to pay taxes - and there are - it seems to me that they should have just as much of a right to vote as anyone else. The United States is just like any other exclusive organization - if you pay your membership fees, you should have some sway. I don't think it's necessarily a bias against non-citizens; it's reasonable that only citizens should be allowed to vote. The problem really stems from immigration policy, and ideally citizenship should be easy to attain. Or maybe that was your point.

What do you mean by libertarian?

(Because I couldn't find an equally amusing piece of temperance propaganda. Guess I'll have to be happy with Victory Gin.)

Keep in mind that those delegate numbers are not set in stone. The way delegates are determined differ in each state (which is aggravating). Iowa recently had precinct caucuses. At precinct caucuses delegates are elected to the county conventions, and at the county conventions delegates are elected to the district conventions, and at the district conventions delegates are elected to the state convention, and at the state convention delegates are elected to the Republican National Convention, and at the Republican National Convention the delegates choose who the nominee is. So the delegates the state of Iowa sends to the convention may not actually reflect the popular vote at the precinct caucuses. Plus, as far as I know, the delegates can change their mind at any point in the process. Edit: The Iowa Democratic Caucus is even more complicated than that. Edit 2: Said Republican Iowa State Convention does not occur until June 12.

In the Who's Online list.