[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]
BTW, on another note (once again a point of interpretation)... The Ten Commandment's doesn't include "Thou Shalt Not Kill...", it says "Thou Shalt Not Murder." There is a difference.
[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]Interesting...
I'm a Christian in faith, and yet I don't believe that abortion is murder. I think it is a sin in the respect that it can be abused for the purpose of birth control.
I'm sure I'll burn in Hell in the minds of many here and elsewhere, but here it goes.
_____
Strictly speaking from a theological standpoint (all you evolutionists, etc will have to sit this one out ;) ), I don't hold to the idea that some of the verses in the Bible that are used to say it is murder and a sin hold very well.
The common one that is used quite often is the one in the psalms where God knew the person in the womb and what that child would become.
This speaks to a whole different theological point that I won't go into here about Gods Omniscience and the theory of pre-destiny.
I have yet to see ANYONE point out a verse that specifically calls abortion murder. I welcome that day, as it would make a pointed difference in my outlook on it.
[/B][/QUOTE]
JackN, I don't have any verses at hand. You've challenged me, thanks. ;)
[i][edit: I'm re-reading this, and it sounds confrontational/accusatory. Its not meant that way.][/i]
I do know that women, in general, are more in tune with their bodies than men. I know that when my wife lost our first child to a miscarriage, we lost a child, not a fetus.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by bobo [/i]
[B]JackN, I don't have any verses at hand. You've challenged me, thanks. ;)
[i][edit: I'm re-reading this, and it sounds confrontational/accusatory. Its not meant that way.][/i]
I do know that women, in general, are more in tune with their bodies than men. I know that when my wife lost our first child to a miscarriage, we lost a child, not a fetus. [/B][/QUOTE]
I am aware that this is a sensitive subject. I am trying to explore other possibilities, without getting into a emotional exchange.
It's problematic at best since there is no clear moral scale, only that which we perceive by interpretation of various standards that have been offered.
I believe that faith and rationality can co-exist just as much as I believe that faith and science can co-exist.
In the end, each individual must solve this dilemna on their own basis in my opinion.
In summary: I really don't know what the answer is, I just make the best approximation through rational thought, until a better answer comes along.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by E.T [/i]
[B]we have central heating system using firewoods.
(burning wood doesn't add any new CO2 to circulation, unlike burning fossil fuels)
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.webcom.com/~bi/welcome.html[/url]
[url]http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumerinfo/factsheets/ja3.html[/url]
[url]http://www.webcom.com/~bi/wood-smoke101.htm[/url]
No worries about deforestation either?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]I believe that faith and rationality can co-exist just as much as I believe that faith and science can co-exist.[/B][/QUOTE]
"Faith and reason are the shoes on your feet. You can get farther with both than with just one."
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Konrad [/i]
[B]No worries about deforestation either? [/B][/QUOTE]
Two thirds of Finland is covered by different forests and annual growth is much bigger than what is used.
And neither is oil so clean and efficient, transferring it long distances consumes much energy (fossil fuels) also with not so good efficiency, same goes for refining it.
Also for electricity, no power plant is 100% efficient.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bekenn [/i]
[B]Erm... look to the guy who posted right before you. [/B][/QUOTE]
Well thanks for that Bekenn, but officially I am not a Geologist. It is one of my favorite hobbies, and a dream to be one which will likely never become true on paper.
At best I am an armchair kinda guy, who looks at the world literally through the eyes of those who have gone the distance.
I am am fascinated by our worlds mechanics, and love to learn new things about it.
;)
I do think we have some card carrying members of the Geology club here on FO though.... ;)
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
I'm a partially trained natural environment geographer (with particular interest in atmospheric and coastal processes) but I never took enough papers to consider myself more than an amateur. :)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Although Ive decided we really do need a resident geologist.[/B][/QUOTE]
If you are willing to foot the bill for the 10 years it would take me to get a Masters in Geology, I'm available...
:p :D
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]I guess the older passe' term of Physical Geography applies here? :p[/b][/quote]
Natural geography seems to be more common now, at least at my university.
[quote][b]I still like "Geology", but find that term incorrect when applied to other planets like Mars or Venus for example.[/B][/QUOTE]
Geology is, according to my geologist friend, stuff that involves rocks (eg volcanoes, rock erosion, tectonics, etc). So while it is considered a part of natural geography, it doesn't appear to cover atmospheric processes, oceanic processes, and stuff like that.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]Geology is, according to my geologist friend, stuff that involves rocks (eg volcanoes, rock erosion, tectonics, etc). So while it is considered a part of natural geography, it doesn't appear to cover atmospheric processes, oceanic processes, and stuff like that. [/B][/QUOTE]
Not to mention the Geo refers to Earth, so shouldn't Mars be something like Areology or Aresology. Or does Geo refer to Terra (physical Earth) rather than Planet centric?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bekenn [/i]
[B]This is why I love FirstOnes.
Nowhere else have I seen such a blatantly political thread turned into a discussion of comparative planetary studies. [/B][/QUOTE]Yeah... On elsewhere threads go to other direction.
I wonder what would be name for science studying gas planets. ;)
Well... actually gas planets have even weather phenomenons.:D
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by E.T [/i]
[B]Yeah... On elsewhere threads go to other direction.
I wonder what would be name for science studying gas planets. ;)
Well... actually gas planets have even weather phenomenons.:D [/B][/QUOTE]
Meteorology? :)
Or maybe Exometeorology?
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Actually, becuase of the density of the gasses, it might be more akin to oceanography. But you can't ignore the air part of it - so maybe exo-meteo-ocean-ology? :D
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]Actually, becuase of the density of the gasses, it might be more akin to oceanography. But you can't ignore the air part of it - so maybe exo-meteo-ocean-ology? :D [/B][/QUOTE]
Also there's part that at least in Jupiter considerable part of planets hydrogen is in form called metallic hydrogen.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
But it's still a gas, not rock. So you couldn't use geology, or areology, or whatever. :)
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Well...astrogeology is appropraitely used when refering to other planets. Furthermore we are refering to the physical systems of a planet that has both gas, liquid, and solid components. I fail to see how this is any different for a gas giant then for a rock-based planet. The only main difference is the size of the world and what percentage of each classification there is.
I would say that the biggest problem we are encountering is that on the earth we have Geology, Oceanology, and Meteology. These three combined bring us a unified planetary science of earth (which seems to have no name other then Earth science). What we need is to name this unified field on Earth and then adapt this name to other planets, including gas giants.
I'm pleased to see this thread has morphed into a pretty good discussion. Throwing my $0.02 in ...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]
1. social security needs to be completely overhalled. The current system depends on a dramatic and major influx of new taxpayers or constantly higher taxes to support those receving benefits.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I think most people tend to agree that the system, in its current form, is unsustainable. However, saying that it's "a mess" is a little dramatic, but potato/potato ;). Let's start off with the basics...
Every tax paying american must pay 12.4% (upto a yearly defined inflation adjusted ceiling -- $87,000 this year) of his/her income to the US treasury on behalf of Social Security Administration. That money is then used to pay beneficaries. Since about 1983 there have been more people paying than collecting, so every year since we've had a surplus in social security revenue. The problem is that sometime around 2019 that situation will change. As the baby-boom generation retirement hits full swing, we'll have more people collecting than paying. In addition to that, life expectancy has changed substantially. The average life expectancy in 1935 (when the program was introduced) was 63. FDR set the retirement age at 65, which controlled the amount that is paid out. The average life expectancy now is in the mid 70's and the retirement age is 67. So you've got an even higher percentage of people collecting.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]
The idea of "a social security lock box" is a lie, all money recivied via the social security taxes is put into the general fund, and all recipts paid out are done by the general fund.
[/B][/QUOTE]
That's exactly right. Many politicians like to refer to this as a "trust fund", implying a definition of trust that's used in the private sector. But it is not. That 12.4% of the first $87,000 that you earn is put into the general fund. If the government is running a deficit then the social security surplus is spent.
The "lock box" (that Gore brought up every 5 seconds during the 2000 debates) was actually an attempt to create a real trust; a fund that could not be spent on, say, farm subsidies, education, health research, tax cuts, or the Iraq war.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]
Either recently or sometime in the future the amount of money being payed. privitization in some form, or using perhaps long term bonds is the only way out of that mess, as the current system has degenerated into a pyramid scheme which, like all pyramid schemes will collapse, and in this case probably irreperably shatter the nation.
[/B][/QUOTE]
We've basically got 2 problems.
1) a situation where 77 million americans have, over the last few decades, been paying money to the government with the expectation that they'll get it back in the form of social security. The government has been spending that money and writing itself IOUs. In about 15 years it's got to start paying back those IOUs, estimated at about $5 trillion. You've got to do that reguardless of whether or not people can, in the future, divert some or all of their 12.4% into a private account. However, if you are allowed to divert some of your money to a private account then there's less money coming in to pay off these IOUs. These "IOUs" are, [URL=http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5530&sequence=0]ITCBOHO[/URL] (in the congressional budgeting office's humble opinion) a real threat to the economy.
2) You then have to decide if/how to stop this from happening again. That's where the private accounts come in. Another option is to create a government controlled trust (a real one) backed by treasury bonds.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]
6. The economy, NON ISSUE since the president doesnt deal with the economy. even the all mighty FDR, NEVER grew the GNP untill his 4th term, (you know that whole war thing occured though) And again untill the war unemployement never dropped below 10%. The only thing trully usefull his public works projects accomplished, is beefing up the US navy just before WWII, it was under the disguise of keeping the shipyard workers at work that the US ended up with 5 aircraft carriers, a dozen extra crusiers and quite a few DD's. And for that I give grudging approval. [/B][/QUOTE]
I disagree. It depends how you define "the economy", but my definition includes the US treasury and a modern president (and specifically the current president) has substantial influence on it. The majority of congressmen (and women, both houses, both sides of the isle) have turned into partisan hacks, more worried about pissing off the party than doing their job (representing those who elected them). Tax cuts, the Iraq war, faith based initiatives, among other spending, are all responsible for the deficit spending that's going on right now. While this spending is/was passed by congress, the president (and rightfully so) takes credit for it. That, to me, is dangerous influence (if not direct control) over the economy.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for tax cuts, but you have to decrease spending at the same time, otherwise it's a deferred tax increase (this is economics 101).
In 1986, under Bush 1, the Budget Enforcement Act was passed. It was a pretty simple law that said:
1) if you cut taxes then you have to cut spending in order to balance the budget
2) if you increase spending then you have to increase taxes in order to balance the budget
Pretty straight forward, right? It continued through Bush 1 and both of Clinton's terms, but when the time came to renew it during the president's first term the republicans in the house killed it. That was a big win for the president but a terrible loss for the country, because we're borrowing a lot of money and we'll be paying it off long after the president leaves office.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by WonderHamster [/i]
[B]It continued through Bush 1 and both of Clinton's terms, but when the time came to renew it during the president's first term the republicans in the house killed it. That was a big win for the president but a terrible loss for the country, because we're borrowing a lot of money and we'll be paying it off long after the president leaves office. [/B][/QUOTE]
And you know who's gonna have to pay from that then...
Only one thing is sure, it's not going to be the rich ones.
Comments
[B]
BTW, on another note (once again a point of interpretation)... The Ten Commandment's doesn't include "Thou Shalt Not Kill...", it says "Thou Shalt Not Murder." There is a difference.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I agree with you on this one, JackN.
[B]Interesting...
I'm a Christian in faith, and yet I don't believe that abortion is murder. I think it is a sin in the respect that it can be abused for the purpose of birth control.
I'm sure I'll burn in Hell in the minds of many here and elsewhere, but here it goes.
_____
Strictly speaking from a theological standpoint (all you evolutionists, etc will have to sit this one out ;) ), I don't hold to the idea that some of the verses in the Bible that are used to say it is murder and a sin hold very well.
The common one that is used quite often is the one in the psalms where God knew the person in the womb and what that child would become.
This speaks to a whole different theological point that I won't go into here about Gods Omniscience and the theory of pre-destiny.
I have yet to see ANYONE point out a verse that specifically calls abortion murder. I welcome that day, as it would make a pointed difference in my outlook on it.
[/B][/QUOTE]
JackN, I don't have any verses at hand. You've challenged me, thanks. ;)
[i][edit: I'm re-reading this, and it sounds confrontational/accusatory. Its not meant that way.][/i]
I do know that women, in general, are more in tune with their bodies than men. I know that when my wife lost our first child to a miscarriage, we lost a child, not a fetus.
[B]JackN, I don't have any verses at hand. You've challenged me, thanks. ;)
[i][edit: I'm re-reading this, and it sounds confrontational/accusatory. Its not meant that way.][/i]
I do know that women, in general, are more in tune with their bodies than men. I know that when my wife lost our first child to a miscarriage, we lost a child, not a fetus. [/B][/QUOTE]
I am aware that this is a sensitive subject. I am trying to explore other possibilities, without getting into a emotional exchange.
It's problematic at best since there is no clear moral scale, only that which we perceive by interpretation of various standards that have been offered.
I believe that faith and rationality can co-exist just as much as I believe that faith and science can co-exist.
In the end, each individual must solve this dilemna on their own basis in my opinion.
In summary: I really don't know what the answer is, I just make the best approximation through rational thought, until a better answer comes along.
;)
[B]we have central heating system using firewoods.
(burning wood doesn't add any new CO2 to circulation, unlike burning fossil fuels)
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.webcom.com/~bi/welcome.html[/url]
[url]http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumerinfo/factsheets/ja3.html[/url]
[url]http://www.webcom.com/~bi/wood-smoke101.htm[/url]
No worries about deforestation either?
[B]I believe that faith and rationality can co-exist just as much as I believe that faith and science can co-exist.[/B][/QUOTE]
"Faith and reason are the shoes on your feet. You can get farther with both than with just one."
[B]No worries about deforestation either? [/B][/QUOTE]
Two thirds of Finland is covered by different forests and annual growth is much bigger than what is used.
And neither is oil so clean and efficient, transferring it long distances consumes much energy (fossil fuels) also with not so good efficiency, same goes for refining it.
Also for electricity, no power plant is 100% efficient.
[B]Also for electricity, no power plant is 100% efficient. [/B][/QUOTE]
No, but Solar is damn close! ;)
relativism is on the ropes, and were having a reasonable argument about global warming.
Although Ive decided we really do need a resident geologist.
Everybody! kidnap geology majors! we need a broader pool of expertiese!
Ooh ooh, who in the US watched Nova last night? those guys with the Sulbrian/clovis connection have to be reaaaaly unpopular right about now.
[B]Although Ive decided we really do need a resident geologist.[/B][/QUOTE]
Erm... look to the guy who posted right before you.
[B]Erm... look to the guy who posted right before you. [/B][/QUOTE]
Well thanks for that Bekenn, but officially I am not a Geologist. It is one of my favorite hobbies, and a dream to be one which will likely never become true on paper.
At best I am an armchair kinda guy, who looks at the world literally through the eyes of those who have gone the distance.
I am am fascinated by our worlds mechanics, and love to learn new things about it.
;)
I do think we have some card carrying members of the Geology club here on FO though.... ;)
I still like "Geology", but find that term incorrect when applied to other planets like Mars or Venus for example.
I'm most definately an amateur myself at best! ;)
[B]Although Ive decided we really do need a resident geologist.[/B][/QUOTE]
If you are willing to foot the bill for the 10 years it would take me to get a Masters in Geology, I'm available...
:p :D
[B]I guess the older passe' term of Physical Geography applies here? :p[/b][/quote]
Natural geography seems to be more common now, at least at my university.
[quote][b]I still like "Geology", but find that term incorrect when applied to other planets like Mars or Venus for example.[/B][/QUOTE]
Geology is, according to my geologist friend, stuff that involves rocks (eg volcanoes, rock erosion, tectonics, etc). So while it is considered a part of natural geography, it doesn't appear to cover atmospheric processes, oceanic processes, and stuff like that.
[B]Geology is, according to my geologist friend, stuff that involves rocks (eg volcanoes, rock erosion, tectonics, etc). So while it is considered a part of natural geography, it doesn't appear to cover atmospheric processes, oceanic processes, and stuff like that. [/B][/QUOTE]
Not to mention the Geo refers to Earth, so shouldn't Mars be something like Areology or Aresology. Or does Geo refer to Terra (physical Earth) rather than Planet centric?
:p
I'm not sure what the equivalent word is for a person who studies Venus.
Nowhere else have I seen such a blatantly political thread turned into a discussion of comparative planetary studies.
[B]This is why I love FirstOnes.
Nowhere else have I seen such a blatantly political thread turned into a discussion of comparative planetary studies. [/B][/QUOTE]Yeah... On elsewhere threads go to other direction.
I wonder what would be name for science studying gas planets. ;)
Well... actually gas planets have even weather phenomenons.:D
[B]Yeah... On elsewhere threads go to other direction.
I wonder what would be name for science studying gas planets. ;)
Well... actually gas planets have even weather phenomenons.:D [/B][/QUOTE]
Meteorology? :)
Or maybe Exometeorology?
[B]Actually, becuase of the density of the gasses, it might be more akin to oceanography. But you can't ignore the air part of it - so maybe exo-meteo-ocean-ology? :D [/B][/QUOTE]
Also there's part that at least in Jupiter considerable part of planets hydrogen is in form called metallic hydrogen.
I would say that the biggest problem we are encountering is that on the earth we have Geology, Oceanology, and Meteology. These three combined bring us a unified planetary science of earth (which seems to have no name other then Earth science). What we need is to name this unified field on Earth and then adapt this name to other planets, including gas giants.
[B]This is why I love FirstOnes.
Nowhere else have I seen such a blatantly political thread turned into a discussion of comparative planetary studies. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm just glad we're on page 6 now...
:p:rolleyes:
that last one was killing me on this 56k modem...
I'm pleased to see this thread has morphed into a pretty good discussion. Throwing my $0.02 in ...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]
1. social security needs to be completely overhalled. The current system depends on a dramatic and major influx of new taxpayers or constantly higher taxes to support those receving benefits.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I think most people tend to agree that the system, in its current form, is unsustainable. However, saying that it's "a mess" is a little dramatic, but potato/potato ;). Let's start off with the basics...
Every tax paying american must pay 12.4% (upto a yearly defined inflation adjusted ceiling -- $87,000 this year) of his/her income to the US treasury on behalf of Social Security Administration. That money is then used to pay beneficaries. Since about 1983 there have been more people paying than collecting, so every year since we've had a surplus in social security revenue. The problem is that sometime around 2019 that situation will change. As the baby-boom generation retirement hits full swing, we'll have more people collecting than paying. In addition to that, life expectancy has changed substantially. The average life expectancy in 1935 (when the program was introduced) was 63. FDR set the retirement age at 65, which controlled the amount that is paid out. The average life expectancy now is in the mid 70's and the retirement age is 67. So you've got an even higher percentage of people collecting.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]
The idea of "a social security lock box" is a lie, all money recivied via the social security taxes is put into the general fund, and all recipts paid out are done by the general fund.
[/B][/QUOTE]
That's exactly right. Many politicians like to refer to this as a "trust fund", implying a definition of trust that's used in the private sector. But it is not. That 12.4% of the first $87,000 that you earn is put into the general fund. If the government is running a deficit then the social security surplus is spent.
The "lock box" (that Gore brought up every 5 seconds during the 2000 debates) was actually an attempt to create a real trust; a fund that could not be spent on, say, farm subsidies, education, health research, tax cuts, or the Iraq war.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]
Either recently or sometime in the future the amount of money being payed. privitization in some form, or using perhaps long term bonds is the only way out of that mess, as the current system has degenerated into a pyramid scheme which, like all pyramid schemes will collapse, and in this case probably irreperably shatter the nation.
[/B][/QUOTE]
We've basically got 2 problems.
1) a situation where 77 million americans have, over the last few decades, been paying money to the government with the expectation that they'll get it back in the form of social security. The government has been spending that money and writing itself IOUs. In about 15 years it's got to start paying back those IOUs, estimated at about $5 trillion. You've got to do that reguardless of whether or not people can, in the future, divert some or all of their 12.4% into a private account. However, if you are allowed to divert some of your money to a private account then there's less money coming in to pay off these IOUs. These "IOUs" are, [URL=http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5530&sequence=0]ITCBOHO[/URL] (in the congressional budgeting office's humble opinion) a real threat to the economy.
2) You then have to decide if/how to stop this from happening again. That's where the private accounts come in. Another option is to create a government controlled trust (a real one) backed by treasury bonds.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]
6. The economy, NON ISSUE since the president doesnt deal with the economy. even the all mighty FDR, NEVER grew the GNP untill his 4th term, (you know that whole war thing occured though) And again untill the war unemployement never dropped below 10%. The only thing trully usefull his public works projects accomplished, is beefing up the US navy just before WWII, it was under the disguise of keeping the shipyard workers at work that the US ended up with 5 aircraft carriers, a dozen extra crusiers and quite a few DD's. And for that I give grudging approval. [/B][/QUOTE]
I disagree. It depends how you define "the economy", but my definition includes the US treasury and a modern president (and specifically the current president) has substantial influence on it. The majority of congressmen (and women, both houses, both sides of the isle) have turned into partisan hacks, more worried about pissing off the party than doing their job (representing those who elected them). Tax cuts, the Iraq war, faith based initiatives, among other spending, are all responsible for the deficit spending that's going on right now. While this spending is/was passed by congress, the president (and rightfully so) takes credit for it. That, to me, is dangerous influence (if not direct control) over the economy.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for tax cuts, but you have to decrease spending at the same time, otherwise it's a deferred tax increase (this is economics 101).
In 1986, under Bush 1, the Budget Enforcement Act was passed. It was a pretty simple law that said:
1) if you cut taxes then you have to cut spending in order to balance the budget
2) if you increase spending then you have to increase taxes in order to balance the budget
Pretty straight forward, right? It continued through Bush 1 and both of Clinton's terms, but when the time came to renew it during the president's first term the republicans in the house killed it. That was a big win for the president but a terrible loss for the country, because we're borrowing a lot of money and we'll be paying it off long after the president leaves office.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by WonderHamster [/i]
[B]It continued through Bush 1 and both of Clinton's terms, but when the time came to renew it during the president's first term the republicans in the house killed it. That was a big win for the president but a terrible loss for the country, because we're borrowing a lot of money and we'll be paying it off long after the president leaves office. [/B][/QUOTE]
And you know who's gonna have to pay from that then...
Only one thing is sure, it's not going to be the rich ones.
Welcome, WonderHamster.
The beer's in the fridge, and the nuts are all over the place!
([i]Yes![/i] Finally got to say that! :D)