Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: SkippyPB on 3 Feb 2010 12:38 On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:03:27 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> >> Pay attention to the point: the Constitution states, black-letter, >> that people have rights. Such a denial of humanity has not, to the >> best of my knowledge, been legally codified. >> > >I don't disagree with you about the lasting effects of the Punic wars; I >would expect the same deference on matters legal. Don't get me wrong, I'm >not an expert - I had only one course in ConLaw in law school. But the >principles contained therein permeate to almost all other branches. In >simple terms: > >The Constitution most certainly does state that people have rights. >Specifically: >* The people have a right to peaceably assemble (#1) >* The people have a right to keep and bear arms (#2) >* The people have a right to be secure against unreasonable search and >seizure (#4) >* Double jeopardy (#5) > >That's about it. > >Criminals have these rights and a few more: > Bullshit!! Citizens of the United States and other living here under its Constitution have these rights. Only someone one convicted of a crime is a criminal, not someone thought to have committed a crime. How many folks have been released from death row recently that were finally proven to be innocent of what they were put in jail for? God forbid you and your backwater ideas ever get arrested for something you didn't do. >* Indictment by grand jury (#5) >* Self-incrimination (#5) >* Due process (#5) >* Deprived of life, liberty, or property outside the law(#5) >* Public jury trial (#6) >* Confront witnesses (#6) >* Obtain witnesses (#6) >* Have an attorney (#6) > >Note that "the people" do not have the rights in the second list, only >criminals. For example, you can be compelled to present evidence against >yourself in a civil deposition. You do not have a right to an attorney in a >small-claims court. You can be incarcerated indefinitely for failure to pay >child support. You CAN be stripped-searched at an airport. > >Point is, if you have not been charged with a crime, nor officially presumed >(via probable cause) to be a criminal, you have none of the rights on the >second list. > Regards, -- //// (o o) -oOO--(_)--OOo- "I am not sincere, even when I say I am not." -- Jules Renard ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Remove nospam to email me. Steve
From: Anonymous on 4 Feb 2010 08:39 In article <cjajm55m18fr1muntnjouqh4jnhdju3rpi(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:39:15 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" ><dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >>As I mentioned in another post here, we all have 20/20 vision with >>hindsight. > >With politics, I don't think so. Often times, both sides of an issue >say "I told you so", but we can't do scientific type tests to >determine which choice was really best. When confronted with arguments such as these - 's/he would have behaved differently had...' or 'society would be different with the institution of (policy)' or 'the world would be better/worse with...' my second response (the first being about the questionable validity of the past subjunctive) is 'That's a curious assertion... what is the 'control group' for the experiment of an individual life/social group/planet?' I've found that those who do not consider the necessity of a control group for a scientific experiment are not espousing what I was taught to call science. DD
From: Anonymous on 4 Feb 2010 08:52 In article <dcbjm5pujnmj4svvf4g7ipsbq1lct562s2(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:29:04 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" ><dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >>I am always a little bit humbled, and touched, by friends who may be devout >>Christians and actually fear for my mortal soul. >>(Some of them genuinely care and don't want to see me suffering the torments >>of Hell throughout Eternity.) >>"What if you're wrong, Pete? What if you find yourself before God and have >>to account? " > >Of course, what if they're wrong and Islam or Hinduism or some other >religion is right? I may have missed Mr Dashwood's original posting - I tend to hit the delete key if I find myself paging down through too many pages of quoted text when nary an original statement is to be found - but what Mr Dashwood's friends are positing seems to be a variant of Pascal's Wager. That's always struck me as 'what kind of omniscient, omnipotent and omnibeneficent Being would dismiss a more-or-less well-lead life due to the absence of a stated 'I believe...'?' After all, if such a Deity knew all, yea, even unto the numbering of the hairs of my head, might It not be able to discern the intentions of my actions no matter what I said or told myself was true? 'Sorry, old boy... even though your work increased the quality of life for thousands, your treatment of others was, pretty much, courteous and the damage you caused was outweighed by the good that eventually resulted it says here that you didn't hold to the Infallibility of My Chosen Representative on earth. Tell the crew with the horns and pitchfork-tails they need to make room in that pot of boiling-oil for yet another Unbeliever.' > >My son claims he never stopped believing in the Tooth Fairy, even >though he's paying out for his kids. If he loses a tooth, he wants >the money. If he needs the cash that badly tell him to find a bar-room brawl and make sure to be on the losing side. DD
From: Howard Brazee on 4 Feb 2010 10:46 On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:52:08 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >>Of course, what if they're wrong and Islam or Hinduism or some other >>religion is right? > >I may have missed Mr Dashwood's original posting - I tend to hit the >delete key if I find myself paging down through too many pages of quoted >text when nary an original statement is to be found - but what Mr >Dashwood's friends are positing seems to be a variant of Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager makes some sort of sense if there are only two choices, and one choice doesn't have a cost involved. But with religions involved, there are lots and lots of choices, with many religions and sub-religions ascribing a terrible cost for those who choose wrong. So if one wants to make that wager, it is worth while doing a comparative study of all of the religions that promise unacceptable punishment to the non-believers and pick either the most likely, or the one with the worst such punishment. >That's always struck me as 'what kind of omniscient, omnipotent and >omnibeneficent Being would dismiss a more-or-less well-lead life due to >the absence of a stated 'I believe...'?' After all, if such a Deity knew >all, yea, even unto the numbering of the hairs of my head, might It not be >able to discern the intentions of my actions no matter what I said or told >myself was true? Lots of people believe in an omnipotent, all-loving god who allows the vast majority of His children to be tortured beyond all understanding forever and ever without hope of parole - for the crime of being fooled. Actually, this is a variation of "My way is right, therefore your way is wrong - and if you aren't sorry now that you don't think my way, you will be sorry later". But Churches and other organizations tend to build on their power by codifying beliefs of infallibility. Stories become Law, objection to authority becomes treason, and servants become masters. Also personal deities become unknowing, abstract entities that need not make sense - so we have to accept whatever the Church says. .... >>My son claims he never stopped believing in the Tooth Fairy, even >>though he's paying out for his kids. If he loses a tooth, he wants >>the money. > >If he needs the cash that badly tell him to find a bar-room brawl and make >sure to be on the losing side. It's not about money, it's an amusing illustration of Pascal's wager. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Anonymous on 4 Feb 2010 11:30
In article <5aqlm59qku96r1nqd8v83utmokvse3vstf(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:52:08 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: [snip] >>>My son claims he never stopped believing in the Tooth Fairy, even >>>though he's paying out for his kids. If he loses a tooth, he wants >>>the money. >> >>If he needs the cash that badly tell him to find a bar-room brawl and make >>sure to be on the losing side. > >It's not about money, it's an amusing illustration of Pascal's wager. If it isn't about the money then the statement 'he wants the money' seems absurd... then again, a lot of things about money seem to work that way. DD |