Comments by
Page 1 of 5 | Next
Posted on November 24 at 12:32 a.m.Suggest removal
Josh, it was a nice try. Really, it was. Your idea of a compromise is wonderful except for one tiny problem.
It's based on bad science.
See, you're operating under the assumption that somehow neural activity--ANY form of neural activity--is absolute proof of human cognition and self-awareness. I would go so far to extrapolate what you said to indicate that you believe that it is an indicator of the presence of the human soul.
The problem is, that ain't the case. Neural activity takes place in worms less than a millimeter in size. All mammals exhibit this sort of activity. If neural activity was a perfect marker for consciousness, then we could never morally eat a hamburger or test our medicines on animals.
It might take neural activity to make a human conscious, but that doesn't mean all signs of neural activity are necessary indicators of human awareness. There are parts of the brain that have no bearing on consciousness, others that do. The science isn't there yet to establish a definitive link between which neurons lead to the establishment of a human mind.
If there's no clear science, then your ten-week compromise is really just an arbitrary line drawn in the sand. I suggest you rethink your philosophy.
Posted on November 18 at 8:10 a.m.Suggest removal
My hometown managed to double the number of DWI citations without resorting to anything as invasive and insulting as sobriety checkpoints. How did they do it? They put the officers through special training on how to identify drunk drivers, how to pick out high-risk areas to patrol, etc.
Perhaps the OSHO's money could be better spent keeping these officers on patrol instead of having them stay in the same location all night as they harass every motorist that crosses their path.
Posted on November 15 at 11:44 p.m.Suggest removal
I seriously doubt that OU has a population of raging, rebellious bicyclists who want to chain their bikes to any and every illegal surface imaginable, or that only strict enforcement of the law can restrain them.
It seems to me like it would be perfectly appropriate to post a notice (as the OUPD often does on bikes that appear to be abandoned) requiring the bicycle to be moved by a certain time before destroying the cyclist's property and impounding the bike. In dealiung with the abandoned bikes, they often allow the owner months to remove the tag. Obviously in this case it would be more appropriate to only allow a few days/hours of grace, but regardless there are lesser measures that could be taken than this strong policy.
I think that's all the editorial board is saying.
Posted on November 12 at 7:36 p.m.Suggest removal
About time someone with a bit of sense contributed to this discussion. Amazing what a bit of honest information can do to the debate.
Posted on November 10 at 8:58 p.m.Suggest removal
It's called "reductio ad absurdum" actually, not "stilted logic" or "intimidation." Make sure you know what you're saying before you post it, goofball.
Posted on November 9 at 10:58 p.m.Suggest removal
Actually there have been studies that weaken the assumption that solar activity is the contributing factor to the recent measurements of global warming. They found no correlation, as I recall.
Now while it's true you don't need a Ph.D. to be a skeptic, you also need to have the proper scientific understanding to logically debate the issue. Your questions about the "ideal" carbon dioxide level, for example, are patently ridiculous. The biosphere existed for eons before humans began to release the amounts of carbon, and to assume that our increased CO2 levels are somehow needed for the environment is silly and not the result of well-considered skepticism.
As to the political consequences, you need to realize that they are just that: political. You can accept the science and be skeptical about the politics; however, this article lumps them together in one large amalgam that fails to distinguish scientific evidence from the proposed political solution.
That being said, CO2 excess is a classic case of the "tragedy of the commons" if you accept the notion that its excess damages the native environment. Look it up.
Finally, please don't mention Al Gore's movie in a skeptical debate... because guess what? He SIMPLIFIED what he was told by the scientists in an effort to make the information accessible to a broader audience. He widely succeeded in this respect, but don't mistake mass-marketed popular science for scientific rigor. He left things out. No peer-reviewed article will ever mention Al Gore as a reference for fact, and neither should you.
In fact, a good skeptic will disregard this article entirely.
Posted on November 9 at 10:47 p.m.Suggest removal
mustafa, you're right. Christian fundamentalists don't shoot up army bases; they prefer to bomb abortion clinics or murder doctors who practice abortion in church.
Also, fundamentalist libertarians like to bomb our federal buildings, murder government employees, and occasionally even strike out at universities.
I guess by your line of logic, libertarians and christians should also be put under lock and key because, y'know, they're part of a dangerous radical philosophy.
Posted on October 31 at 12:44 p.m.Suggest removal
A stolen CD could just as easily be burned into 100 copies that are given to all of the thief's friends, family, classmates, fraternity brothers, dates, whatever. The only difference is that distribution online is much easier to track and prove than a burned CD copy is.
Posted on October 31 at 12:41 p.m.Suggest removal
I'll let the meteorology department's homepage defend the program's merits. Put simply, it's quite good.
It's obvious that briareus has no idea what he's talking about. In fact, he's most likely a total ignoramus who only opposes the idea of anthropogenic global warming because his favorite political party told him to. All I see from him are ad hominem attacks with no basis in reality.
I'd tell briareus to spend a semester learning how to do computer-based modeling but I think that much math and the application of scientifically proven fundamentals would be too much for him.
I'd say our meteorology Ph.D. commenter summed up the science pretty effectively. These models aren't just trendlines drawn in Excel; they come from a solid scientific basis. That's the reason these climate scientists can make these statements--if they don't put the right terms in the model, they can't fudge the results to match past measurements no matter how hard they try.
Page 1 of 5 | Next
Posted on September 8 at 11:44 a.m.Suggest removal
Are you seriously trying to equate pregnancies in the Navy with irresponsibility? Of 25-year-olds, no less?
You realize it is perfectly normal for 25-year-old women to have babies, right?
Furthermore, the various departments of the US armed services are far from the only employers that have disincentives for their female employees to have children. Should we condemn all 25-year-old employed women who take time out to have children?
Way to make a completely 1950s argument.
On