Quote from: RebeccaFog on May 16, 2007, 03:13:32 PMI don't really accept that scientists know the truth about much, if anything. Time is always finding flaws in scientific reasoning because it comes from flawed human beings.

The scientific method in the history of its use has never been wrong once. Just as the basic form of metaphysics (the laws of identity, causality, and non-contradiction) have been wrong once in the history of human kind. Both are foundational sets of knowledge that are 'timeless' in their formation and application. These won't change just as much as arithmetic will never change.

What you are confusing is assumptions or theories as being wrong versus the methods that one can use to derive them. The fact remains, theories can be wrong, but the methods that derive them can never be wrong such that the methods themselves do not suppose any given set of theories are automatically right or wrong without specific provisos on the forms the theories may take (Translation: an abstract method is never wrong since an an abstract method never defines the derived theory from said method.).

QuoteI don't accept what you said about engineers either - "If that's idealistic, then I guess an engineer who says that an engine can't take anymore weight for its effort is also equally idealistic."  I have the horror of working for a company that depends on engineers. They are all good people, but they never seem to understand that reality does not always meet their "studied" expectations.

Then you have bad engineers. The ones I know are the most skeptical, and insightful people I've had the privilege to meet.

QuotePeople are always taking machines that have specific specifications and pushing them beyond the expected limits. So, if an engineer tells me that an engine won't do something, I'd just say, "oh yeah"?

That's skepticism, but there's nothing wrong with that. What you want is to suppose that skepticism is a universal proposition on all things, even axioms. Axioms don't follow under this scope for a good reason, being that axioms are irreducible such that they are apparent in all propositions, and are the "building blocks" of all propositions, even the skeptical propositions.

QuoteI'm not talking in terms of scattered tribes, but in terms of massive organization that incorporates consensus and community.

I never think in terms of groups. In fact, all my thinking with regard to groups is this. A group is fundamentally doomed to failure, thus it requires individuals to break away from it to find the answers it can never grasp, and to prevent the problems it has yet to see. The group by this fact, must always yield to the individual person, for it is the individual that can think and not the group. And it is the individual that can think otherwise against other individuals for which we can discover the truth of all things.

-- Brede

Brede,

  I believe you've wrung me dry. I salute you. I also need to actually pick up a dictionary and learn some of the words you've been using.

Nah, I'm just a geek and I've been studying too much philosophy so my brain probably resembles a Pink Floyd Laser Light Show right about now...

-- Brede

OK...my turn.

While I agree that law enforcement or the courts do not always treat victims equally, do you really think a law against it will change anything?  If so, ask how many employers that hire illegal workers if the laws really mean anything...or better yet, try driving the speed limit on a highway in any major city and notice how many people passing you are worried that they are breaking the law.  I know, picture a bunch of drunken rednecks, or "doped-up" city kids headed for trouble...do you think a hate crimes law is going to keep them from doing something terrible?

If you really want to do something, try getting the courts to quit being such woosies regarding punishing criminals.  You to the crime, you do the time...preferrable HARD time.  Jail should not be a place that just locks you up, it should be a place that you will do anything to stay out of...including obeying the laws.  (I know, that sounds harsh, but I look at the criminals who do horrible things to innocent people and see them living better inside than on the streets, and it really ticks me off.  Their only worry is dealing with Bubba who is getting a little frisky...sheesh, I should have it so well.)

Sorry for the drift...back to the hate crimes bill.


A hate crimes law is a "feel good" action that actually makes your thoughts more illegal than the crime itself. 


I throw a rock through a store window and get my hand slapped (OK, fines and maybe spending the night in jail).  If the rock goes through a window owned by a minority (race, sex, religion, gender), all the sudden I am looking at the potential for serious problems.  Unless I come right out and say that I threw the rock because I hated x, how is anyone going to know what was in my mind when I threw the rock?  Sadly, in our country, there are many who make their livings by finding prejudices and bigotries where none were intended.  "Yes, officer, I deliberately threw that rock through the window because I just can't stand people who have unbroken windows...which way to Bubba's cell?  I might as well get it over with."

Any law that makes certain thoughts criminal is bad.  Period.  End of discussion.

I thought seriously, many times during my marriage, about socking my wife in the mouth just to get her to shut up.  I never did, nor would I agree with anyone doing so.  As long as I did not hit her (or act like I was going to), I committed no crime.  I had thoughts, true, but at this moment it is not illegal to have such thoughts.  I can only pray that the freedom to have such thoughts (without actions) remain legal.  Personally, I don't trust the government (at any level) not to abuse any power given to them.

Which brings me to this idea of rewriting the constitution...

Uhhh...NO!

How about taking the Federal Government and getting it the heck out of my life.  Give me back the 50+% of my income I pay in taxes.  (Figure it out for youself...your Federal Income Tax is only the tip...Social Security, Medicare, Gasoline taxes, Property taxes, School taxes, Sales tax, etc.)  Quit spending my money on pork barrel project after pork after pork.  Quit paying farmers for NOT growing crops.  Quit spending billions of dollars on making the highways beautiful and building Sports Arenas...(well, I didn't want to leave the States and Cities out of my rant)

OK, Thanks...I feel better getting that all out...

Now, you may disagree with what I have written (and I'm sure many of you do).  Be glad that it's OK (and still legal) to disagree, and fight with all your strength to keep that freedom.

Final thought...ya know, a hate crimes bill would not be necessary if we just enforced the laws we currently have.

....Laurie 





     

Laurie,
No offense, you have alot to learn about the legal system.  Hate crimes bills are important because motive is key to determining a crime and to determining sentancing.  To often a "queer rage" defense has been used in court to excuse homophobia and transphobia.  This would eliminate that defense right away.  I could go on why this bill is needed in other ways.  Hate crime legislation is not a thought crime legislation, it is legislation that strikes at the heart of a key part of a criminal proceeding, and that is establishing motive.  This is why nearly every police and prosecution association supports this bill.  A hate crime is not a thought crime, but rather a crime where there was a clear motive based on ones bigotry. 

I also suggest you SERIOUSLY look in the mirror and reevaluate your conservative positions, or speak on this issue once you become a victim of a hate crime or discrimination yourself.    Sadly hate crime bills are necessary, because hate crimes do happen, especially to transgender individuals.  How any transgender individual can seriously look themselves in the mirror and espouse this conservative crap logic is beyond me.  No offense, you are not just wrong on this issue, but incredibly off base on it.  It demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of the legal system in this country as well as your status as somebody who is transgender.  Go ahead, keep supporting the views of those who are intent on discriminating against you, and who by all means have no respect for you and are intent on repressing ALL of your rights.   You will probably also say that anti-discrimination laws protecting people of with regards to thier sexual orientation and gender identity are unnecessary. When these types of viewpoints come from transpeople, it makes me sick because it demonstrates a serious lack of understanding about the society we live in  and who is actually the problem in society for people who are queer (pretty much every conservative republican).  By preaching thier viewpoint(s), which are  incredibly flawed and ignorant, it demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of who exactly you are in this society and what your status is.

Hate crimes bills are not thought crimes bills.  They are bills that strike at the core of any criminal legal proceeding and a determining factor for sentancing...motive.  If you lack this understanding of the justice system, you lack the understanding of why hate crime bills are necessary. 

Seriously, look yourself in the mirror and re-evaluate your viewpoints and turn off fox news and any other republican media propoganda which espouses these viewpoints, such as hate crimes bills are unnecessary (not a suprising from those who are the primary propagators or the philosophy of hate in America).  Being queer, especially transgender, and republican DO NOT MIX.

Quote from: LaurieO on May 18, 2007, 12:25:20 AM

Which brings me to this idea of rewriting the constitution...

Uhhh...NO!

How about taking the Federal Government and getting it the heck out of my life.  Give me back the 50+% of my income I pay in taxes.  (Figure it out for youself...your Federal Income Tax is only the tip...Social Security, Medicare, Gasoline taxes, Property taxes, School taxes, Sales tax, etc.)  Quit spending my money on pork barrel project after pork after pork.  Quit paying farmers for NOT growing crops.  Quit spending billions of dollars on making the highways beautiful and building Sports Arenas...(well, I didn't want to leave the States and Cities out of my rant)

OK, Thanks...I feel better getting that all out...

Now, you may disagree with what I have written (and I'm sure many of you do).  Be glad that it's OK (and still legal) to disagree, and fight with all your strength to keep that freedom.

Final thought...ya know, a hate crimes bill would not be necessary if we just enforced the laws we currently have.

....Laurie 

Hi Laurie,

   My concept for rewriting the constitution is meant to provide for the codification of some of your viewpoints. In fact, it might be argued that my proposals would be even more conservative than yours.

  For example, where the constitution prevents the federal government from forcing citizens to house soldiers, I would add prohibitions that also prevent the federal government from breaking the constitutional edicts by keeping people prisoner (guatanamo) without due process. I am of Lebanese descent and I have been troubled by the governments actions in this century alone, nevermind previous ones.

  I would like to create a statement which declares all human beings and any sentient creatures who we may encounter in the future as being equal in every way. No qualifying of this statement allowed (if it were approved by the committee who writes it and the voters who choose to enact it). No exceptions of the application of equality. This extends to people who are born, created in a lab, or cloned in a basement somewhere.
   No being will be judged on anything other than its actions.

  The federal government would be required to justify every penny it spends. There would be no 'black budget' allowed for any reason or contingency. Federal spending would be severely limited. Extra funds would be put back into the system.

  The American government would be required to apply the constitution to every single human being whether that person is born within the boundaries of the Unites States or not. No exceptions under any condition.

  Anyway, that's the kind of thing I'm thinking of. I think it would be an interesting exercise to have a kind of 'convention' to see what notions people offer up and then to see what notions pass through votes cast by those involved and those who just vote without any direct involvement.

   There are precedents set for this from some in our community. If you google the phrase Transgender "bill of rights" you'll find some examples. There is one such document I've seen (I know I should find a link, but I'm at work and should be working) that declares for Transpeople the right to be told of our own history which is largely ignored by the mainstream schools at this time. I believe that the histories of all peoples are valuable and that this concept should apply to all people.
   Personally, I believe that the civilized world could use a new blueprint for it's policies.

You thought you were going to busted for your thoughts? Wait until you see what this post dredges up.