Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 9,201-9,250 of 12,463

[R.J.]

A drunk never knows that he is drunk. What he sees of himself is normal and rational.

An angry man does not know that he is angry. He shouts "I'M NOT SHOUTING!" at a world that has gone mad all around him.

A fool never knows what he has accepted in faith. What he sees is real and true, and he never realizes that the evidence and testimonies he has accepted have all been accepted on faith, and that the evidence and testimonies he has denied have all been denied by his faith.

As far as evolution and fossil records, and dark matter, and string theories, and preventative medicine (what I've mentioned earlier) and everything else you say is "science", I will not argue that there is evidence. It is interpretation of that evidence that is the problem. One man interprets the fossil record to say the earth is millions of years old. The other interprets that same layer of sedimentary rock as proof that a great flood once covered the earth and killed massive amounts of life. One man looks at the anomalies in astronomy and sees dark matter, the other looks at the same evidence and sees "God holding it all together." One man looks at the latest research on Vitamin D and says "this proves that Vitamin D increases risk of birth defects" while the other man says, "this proves that you still need even more of it." One man looks at light and sees a wave, while the other sees a particle.

Like I said above, the evidence does not convict the criminal, the jury does.

[cerebus]

Robert wrote: "I suppose I should have mentioned that my eyewitness testimony was good enough by prosecutor's standards that I was summoned to court to testify. So why was the news reporter not summoned? Is our court system so flawed that my inaccurate testimony was requested but the lawyers managed to get the reporter's "expert" testimony thrown out? There was another time when I was asked to come down to the station to identify the suspect in a line-up. Why didn’t they call in the reporter then?"
I was not specifically singling you out when I talked about the unreliability of eyewitness accounts. The point was that we all think we remember things exactly as they happened, and studies in psychology and cognitive science have shown that this is not the case, we *all* remember things incorrectly, all the time. This is not to say that every memory we have is wrong in every sense, but that they are not as reliable as was thought in the past. A lot of it comes from the way memories were thought to be laid down, and how they are actually laid down....it is not a case that every time you recall a memory you are retrieving the same memory that was initially laid down, instead the memory is recreated and then that recreation is relaid as the memory, and so on. So each time you're rebuilding and replacing that memory....and again studies have shown this, memories that change over time. I have absolutely no doubt that your testimony was honest, as you recalled it, and possibly even 100% accurate....the problem is other witnesses who may have disagreed would have been recalling in a similarly honest way, as they recalled it. The problem is with eyewitness testimony we cannot be certain that any witness is recalling the 100% accurate truth, no matter how honestly they recall it. Interestingly we can bring faith and evidence into this as well, disregarding for the moment external factors such as bias, character etc, and assuming honest attempts at recollection, if you then have a case where 3 or 4 people recall a situation that agrees in most substantive and relevant areas, and 1 person who (again honestly) has a conflicting recollection, then the (circumstantial) evidence would understandably and legitimately sway the jury (or at least it should) to accept the recollections of the 3 or 4 over the 1. If it comes down to a similar setup but with only 2 conflicting recollections, then I would say (and I'm no legal expert) that beyond reasonable doubt would not have been achieved, since the evidence was equivalent on both sides.

[Travis]

Robert wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Your descriptions of witnessing events have been shown to be as unreliable as the other descriptions (e.g. newspapers) you say are incorrect....studies have shown that eyewitness te..."

When Billy Graham provides any evidence for god, then you have an argument.
Otherwise you are just doing a slightly more elaborate version of the same false equivalency bs.

[cerebus]

Robert wrote: "A drunk never knows that he is drunk. What he sees of himself is normal and rational."
Not always, drunk people are often aware they are drunk, but even taking your point as a given, other sober people around him know he is drunk.

Robert wrote: "An angry man does not know that he is angry. He shouts "I'M NOT SHOUTING!" at a world that has gone mad all around him."
Same as before, it is possible to be angry, and to know you are angry...to be shouting, and to know you are shouting. And as before, even if accepted as a given, there are others who can tell the person is angry and shouting.

Robert wrote: "A fool never knows what he has accepted in faith. What he sees is real and true, and he never realizes that the evidence and testimonies he has accepted have all been accepted on faith, and that the evidence and testimonies he has denied have all been denied by his faith."
Possibly a bit harsh to be calling someone in this example a fool, but I would say most people who accept things on faith are aware they are doing so, so much so with religion that it is a badge of honour, a way to prove your devotion to that religion.

Robert wrote: "As far as evolution and fossil records, and dark matter, and string theories, and preventative medicine (what I've mentioned earlier) and everything else you say is "science", I will not argue that there is evidence. It is interpretation of that evidence that is the problem. One man interprets the fossil record to say the earth is millions of years old. The other interprets that same layer of sedimentary rock as proof that a great flood once covered the earth and killed massive amounts of life. One man looks at the anomalies in astronomy and sees dark matter, the other looks at the same evidence and sees "God holding it all together." One man looks at the latest research on Vitamin D and says "this proves that Vitamin D increases risk of birth defects" while the other man says, "this proves that you still need even more of it." One man looks at light and sees a wave, while the other sees a particle. "
Again, this is part of science, and does not require faith. If a large percentage of evolutionary biologists interpret evidence in a particular way, and one or two outliers interpret it another way, then there is no equivalency. It is the one person shouting, there are enough of us around to go "No, you're definitely shouting". As for your wave/particle light example, it's both. No faith required.

Robert wrote: "Like I said above, the evidence does not convict the criminal, the jury does."
And what does the jury rely on to convict? Evidence, whether it be circumstantial or otherwise, not faith. Or at least that is how it is intended to work, and that is why a jury is ideally a cross section of society. Again it's an imperfect world, and juries have undoubtedly convicted innocent people, and acquitted guilty people, but there isn't a better system that I've seen proposed, so we make do with the best we can manage.

[cerebus]

"Robert wrote: "A fool never knows what he has accepted in faith. What he sees is real and true, and he never realizes that the evidence and testimonies he has accepted have all been accepted on faith, and that the evidence and testimonies he has denied have all been denied by his faith.""
Actually, rereading this, I would say that the "fool" in your point is not accepting something on faith if he is accepting something based on "evidence" as you say. The evidence may certainly be wrong, but it is not faith if they rely on evidence. "Testimonies" certainly, that's faith, but not when relying on evidence.

[R.J.]

Shannon wrote: "Robert wrote: "From a demonologist’s perspective, the same psychology that applies to criminals applies to the supernatural. If you are dealing with a sentient entity that may not want to be detect..."

I need to go to bed, but let me just throw this story out for the sake of pondering. This is true and I am not embellishing(but you can dismiss it on account of no evidence if you want to).

When I was 11, my family moved into a big, old house on the most prestigious boulevard in town. There was a little room at the foot of the basement staircase that was perfect for a young boy, and I was the lucky one to get it. (It turns out that, for some reason, each family that I know moved into that house gave that room to their sons of similar age to me.) The first night I was in that room, I began to feel uneasy, like there was somebody in there with me. I remember being startled by an innocent spider creeping across the floor, and in the years that followed I developed an unexplainable fear of both spiders and the dark (I am now very comfortable in the dark and have regained my affection for spiders—when they are not in my bed). In that room I began to imagine things—at least, that’s what I told myself. I had always been an imaginative person, which is why I like to tell stories. But these fears that I began to imagine started affecting my behavior. I’d wrap myself in multiple layers of blankets to avoid the chilling cold that crept into that room at night. I developed an amazing agility when it came to sprinting up that crooked staircase to avoid the sense of…I can’t quite say what it felt like—something black and evil waiting for me at the bottom of the stairs. If I was home alone, I did not go down into my room. If it was night, I could not go down without other people going with me. We had another door into the basement from the outside of the house; it got so that I’d rather run outside, down the steps to the back door, and enter my room by that route instead.

Years later, my parents put the house up for sale. The neighbor, whom we had rarely talked to, walked up to my mother and said “So are you seeing the ghost yet?” It turns out that somebody hung himself in that staircase decades ago and has manifested in different ways to the boys and the women of that house ever since. That was why my dad got such a good deal on the house, and why in the years since it has never stayed off the market for long. After that, I moved my bed into the top floor of the house and avoided the basement at all costs until the day we moved away. Even when the new owner invited us back to see his remodel, I could not face that staircase. It was not the neighbor who had convinced me. I had already been convinced.

There is no scientific evidence to support this story. Only anecdote. You could accuse me of having researched the house before I became scared, but I know what I felt and I know that I thought it was my imagination until the day that neighbor came over. Does this experience affect my sense of reasoning and my faith? Probably. Do I shrink away from anything that appears to be supernatural? No. I prefer to get to the bottom of it. But in the many mis-adventures with the paranormal since that house, I have never encountered a phenomenon that allowed me to re-create it or repeat it in the name of scientific experiment. Does that mean that I was hallucinating? No. It just means I have no proof.

[cerebus]

Robert said: "Does that mean that I was hallucinating? No. It just means I have no proof."
And in the absence of evidence a story like this does not change opinions on the supernatural. I do not doubt for a second the feelings, senses etc. that you describe, and that they were real and disturbing. I have experienced similar feelings myself. It is understandable why you would use such instances to inform your beliefs about the supernatural, but as you accept yourself you do not have evidence, so it is effectively on faith that you are accepting a supernatural. As with the discussions about religion, I do not have any reason or interest in trying to convince you of the existence of, or the lack thereof, the supernatural. But that is not the debate I am having with you, I am disagreeing that there is an equivalence between religious or supernatural faith, and with science. The point I make are not to convert you, but to try and show that faith is not part of science in the way you are saying.

[[deleted user]]

Robert wrote: "A drunk never knows that he is drunk. What he sees of himself is normal and rational.

An angry man does not know that he is angry. He shouts "I'M NOT SHOUTING!" at a world that has gone mad all ar..."

Absolute statements, which are generalizations, tend to make me itchy.

I've actually known some drunks who knew they were drunks and some angry people who knew they were angry.

Further, not all criminals are convicted by juries. Some forgo a jury trial and are convicted by a judge. Some are convicted based on the fact that they go into the court and admit their guilt, though that's rare. Some are convicted due to the fact that the criminal takes a plea deal. In addition, juries and judges convict based on evidence or the lack thereof, often times, at least.

[Michael]

Shannon wrote "Absolute statements, which are generalizations, tend to make me itchy."

Yeah, but surely not all of them, right? Right?

Anecdotally speaking - fella in the Library the other morning, said this: "If you believe in God, you may as well believe in fairies. Same thing as far as I'm concerned". I was sorry I eavesdropped. I think. Anyway, irrespective of the loftier picture often illustrated in these pages, I thought he sounded like a pillock. Though fair play to him for saying something so superficial so loudly. Wasn't what you'd call constructive commentary though.

[cerebus]

And in all honesty Michael, what is the difference? Assume no historical or contextual knowledge here, how would you explain the difference?

[[deleted user]]

Michael wrote: "Yeah, but surely not all of them, right? Right?"

No. Absolute statements, which are generalizations, do tend to make me itchy. If we were to look at the word "tend" and the part generalizations play, ....

[cHriS]

cerebus wrote: Because it's a decent thing to do.

Ok fair enough, that’s an answer and maybe a well meaning answer from your personal point of view. But in the general scheme of things, it a rather stock reply. A bit like praying for peace.

cerebus wrote: I want to know a) what those social reasons are, and b) what evidence there is to support those reasons.

It could be a simple as; some people just want to preserve the institute of marriage and one way is preserving the ‘word’ marriage in the context it has come to be known.

Nothing more and nothing less. I know the arguments for and against, this has been a topic of debate here already. It is one of these situations where a compromise is needed but can’t be found.

cerebus wrote: Yes, but that's precisely the way science works, constant questioning and re-evaluation of evidence and experiments. If new evidence, based on advances in knowledge, is revealed, then it informs the conclusions....and if the evidence is sufficiently strong it becomes part of the scientific body of knowledge and is what we then work with and continue investigating.

And that's precisely why science is not evidence, or at least not evidence that is conclusive. Because it always includes a caveat that ‘we’ science can change, alter, disregard or revaluate the findings with new evidence.

I am happy to say the same thing. I believe in a creator on the evidence from the bible and will be open to change my mind if/when science proves otherwise.

Re; bible as evidence. Someone here has posted that Jesus did not exist, he was a myth and they have evidence to prove it. So it seems that it is easy to disprove stuff when the only evidence is the written word or an interpretation of the written word. Much of what science relies on as evidence is also interpretation.

cerebus wrote: You may say I 'believe' in evolution in the same way you believe in a creator, but I would say they are difference....I do not 'believe', I accept the evidence,

I don’t disagree. Evolution happened. Whether man was part of that evolution or whether he evolved as science thinks he did, is still not a foregone conclusion. And even if it happened as science says that does not rule out a creator.

You accept the evidence regarding evolution. Ok. You accept the findings and assumptions made on your behalf by science, regarding evolution. As this evidence becomes just a little bit weaker when science discovers that it was wrong in it’s previous assumptions what are your personal thoughts then?

I still accept the old evidence regarding evolution?

I accept that the old evidence is flawed and will suspend my acceptance of evolution until science can give me newer evidence?

I will accept evolution to be true anyway, regardless of what the evidence is?

[Michael]

Cerberus wrote: "Assume no historical or contextual knowledge here"

No can do, not like that. You couldn't explain the difference WITHOUT the type of context you'd have to dismiss in the first place. Or, if it staves off the inevitable rebuttal: I couldn't. None of us would be here if it were that easy. It'd be like saying "I can only do this trick if I never ever think of a budgie when I do it. Now, you have a go... but don't think about that budgie!"

On the specific subject of the chap though, I have a feeling he would have sounded like a pillock even if he were telling me it was cold outside. And it was really bloody cold outside. Perhaps the subject was just a coincidence - he was being true to form and therefore admirably consistent even. (He did say a few other things irrelevant to our subject that supports my view.) Perhaps though it was also that I'd just come from an unexpected but deeply heartwarming encounter with someone I hadn't seen for 23 years and he had harshed my bubbly buzz with pillockry. All of these things are possible of course. But only if I don't dismiss the historical and cultural knowledge (private though it so obviously is) behind how I felt at that point.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Michael wrote: "Yeah, but surely not all of them, right? Right?"

No. Absolute statements, which are generalizations, do tend to make me itchy. If we were to look at the word "tend" and the part ..."

I'm with you on this one. Not a fan.
Generalizations, pretty much any statement that contains 'Always' or 'never', makes me go, 'Yeah, but what about...?"

[Heather]

Shannon wrote: "Michael wrote: "Yeah, but surely not all of them, right? Right?"

No. Absolute statements, which are generalizations, do tend to make me itchy. If we were to look at the word "tend" and the part ..."

I'm glad not to be the only one who tends to not be fond of generalizations. I thought I was the weird one.

As for Michael, generalizations are a logical fallacy because there is usually a rule that trumps the generalization. For example, I could say that all apples are red. Another person could argue that most apples are red, but the fact that there are a few breeds of apple that are green, yellow, or a combination of two or more colors. By stating that not all apples are red, my statement of all apples being red is proven to be false and thus a generalization. Shannon's statement of generalizations tending to make her itchy is not a generalization because there may be generalizations that do not make her itchy.

[Michael]

Shannon, I was riffing on the idea that your statement sounded like a generalisation, sort of, self-referential, ironic. (Stops there, before the vague synonym mountain gets unbearable). You'd disagree I expect.... but I was riffing on it. It was my prologue. Surprised it got a serious answer. I know generalisations are a con... but it would feel weird to say that all of them are. (Riffing again? You decide. I'm genuinely not even sure myself.)

[Travis]

Michael wrote: "Shannon wrote "Absolute statements, which are generalizations, tend to make me itchy."

Yeah, but surely not all of them, right? Right?

Anecdotally speaking - fella in the Library the other morni..."

Why wouldn't you believe in fairies as well as god?
Heck, with fairies there are at least photos. Arthur Conan Doyle believed in both.

[[deleted user]]

Michael wrote: "Shannon, I was riffing on the idea that your statement sounded like a generalisation, sort of, self-referential, ironic."

I'm aware. But, ... that's why I said used the word "tend" ... meaning frequently ... not always.

[cHriS]

I was trying to think of a topic that had little or nothing to do with religion or science directly, but that would fit into this thread and divide opinion bit differently from the usual topic, but I could not think of anything.

Then it came to me............Sean Bean....but I think it's been done. Then I read this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/tra...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/...

It was also the topic on a couple of talk radio stations yesterday.

I would like to reserve my thoughts for now and see who is brave enough to air their option first. I can see how science and religion could be included here, though. One exclusion to the debate would have to be 'genuine' medical conditions.

[cerebus]

Preserve which version of marriage? And for what reason? As I said, if someone is going to claim a non-faith based reason for rejecting same-sex marriage, there needs to be a reason for it. If someone says it should stay as it is, and as such refuse equal rights to other consenting adults, then to be taken seriously, or to expect your opinion to be taken I to consideration,you need to give a better reason. If not, you're welcome to say "I don't agree with it" but you have no right to expect your opinion to be taken into consideration.

As for evidence changing, I don't see that this can now be used as a bad thing, as a reason to reject science. If I were to say science is right, and what it says now is correct and will not change, I will be accused of relying on faith, but if I say that because science relies on evidence I therefore need to be willing to accept new evidence, it is seen as another weakness? Again it comes down to weight of evidence, over time, with the realisation that further evidence may require reevaluation, whereas religion/faith relies on not having evidence, and if evidence conflicts with faith, ignoring the evidence. You keep saying that evolution does not preclude a creator, who set it in motion. You're right, it doesn't, but it does not require that creator as part of the explanation, and as such there is no difference between the creator being a beardy white guy in the sky, or the fairies that Michael is willing to dismiss as being a daft idea. Again you're welcome to your beliefs, but not to expect it to be taken seriously without evidence.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "I was trying to think of a topic that had little or nothing to do with religion or science directly, but that would fit into this thread and divide opinion bit differently from the usual topic, but..."

Wow, cHriS!

My first reaction was ...

:o

This isn't something that's really been on my radar nor have I given it a lot of thought. But, I'm on my lunch right now, so I'm game.

Hold on ...

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "I was trying to think of a topic that had little or nothing to do with religion or science directly, but that would fit into this thread and divide opinion bit differently from the usual topic, but..."

So, I saw this at the start of lunch and thought about it going down to get my lovely turkey sandwich and on the way back ....

My first thoughts ....

What constitutes being overweight? Who decides? Will there be a way of fairly determining such a thing? Across all airlines?

Then, ... I thought ....

What about buses? Should buses assign a tax? School buses?

If an overweight person requires two seats, yes, I think they should pay for the extra seat. Two seats = two tickets. But, .... An added charge or tax based on weight?

My next thought...? Is this discrimination? Then, I realized, in America, weight is not a protected category. So, ... no.

However, that led me to think about what we value. For me, it comes down to that.

What do we value in our society? Money? Looking out for ourselves and our bottom-lines? Or, do we value something else? Where do respect and honor come into play?

Where will the line be? Today a tax on "overweight" people who fly. What will it be tomorrow? What group of people might upset our economy and our bottom-line? If we view people and life through that lens, do we devalue other people and lessen our own humanity?

[Michael]

For the record, I don't believe in fairies and believe Conan Doyle screwed the pooch with that one (even if the film "Fairy Tale", concerning that episode, is thoroughly charming.) Not that anyone has suggested I do believe in fey folk, but I figured I'd get a pre-emptive strike in, knowing that this dialogue often whirls and twists in Escher-like ways and the whole issue might get lost in it all.

As you were.

[Travis]

Michael wrote: "For the record, I don't believe in fairies and believe Conan Doyle screwed the pooch with that one (even if the film "Fairy Tale", concerning that episode, is thoroughly charming.) Not that anyone..."

I don't think it's a matter of you do believe in fairies, but rather why wouldn't you?
At least my thoughts, are an interest in the matters of degree of belief.

[[deleted user]]

Several years ago, I went to Borders and looked for a book that would explain the knowings I get. I needed guidance. I pulled a book that dealt with "ESP" and, as I flipped through it, I saw a chapter on fairies. I put the book back.

I'll tell you, though, ....

As I was walking away from book, something hit me. Plenty of people wouldn't believe me ... that I know things sometimes. Plenty would think me delusional or a liar, etc.... Do I believe in fairies? I don't think so. However, I believe fairies are possible. I believe aliens are possible. Bigfoot. It would be wrong, in my heart, not to be open to the possibilities. I also have Irish ancestry, so ....

[cHriS]

cerebus wrote: Again you're welcome to your beliefs, but not to expect it to be taken seriously without evidence.
.."

I do not expect anything, I am merely responding to questions, suggestions or accusations. In time science may well triumph and prove beyond all doubt that there is no god, but that is not good enough for me right now.

cerebus wrote: As for evidence changing, I don't see that this can now be used as a bad thing, as a reason to reject science.

It is not a bad thing, it is good, that's how we advance the human race and I do not reject science. This topic is no more that a bit of fun since we can never live in a world without either religion or science.

But, on this one particular aspect of science; science has no more idea of where we came from than religion has. Religion sticks with a creator idea while science has many theories, but none proven.

If it is a race, at best science and religion are neck and neck. Which ever horse we back, the chances are that we will never see the end of the race anyway.

cerebus wrote: As I said, if someone is going to claim a non-faith based reason for rejecting same-sex marriage, there needs to be a reason for it.

.....and there is a reason, and a very large percentage of the population (UK at least) think the same way and we have covered this here before, but that we where the debate breaks down and the word homophobic rears it ugly head.

cerebus wrote: If someone says it should stay as it is, and as such refuse equal rights to other consenting adults....

We are all equal but we are not all the same and I wish that some parts of society would stop trying to make us all the same.

The issue is not refusing equal rights, as far as I am aware we all have the same rights, the argument is the words used, not the rights.

A side issue but no less relevant. Should we allow a man to play tennis in the woman’s singles at Wimbledon this year if he is good enough and wants to?

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "cerebus wrote: Again you're welcome to your beliefs, but not to expect it to be taken seriously without evidence.
.."

I do not expect anything, I am merely responding to questions, suggestions or..."

actually, with the gay marriage debate we are denying people rights.
and I'm sorry to hear you feel the idea of stopping telling a portion of the population that their families don't count and they should be treated as second class citizens is forcing us all to be the same.

and actually, the tennis example isn't relevant and it's slightly insulting.
Why not use the example of how some parts of society forced black people to be all the same by making them vote.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: I'm sorry to hear you feel the idea of stopping telling a portion of the population that their families don't count and they should be treated as second class citizens "

You are illustrating why these sort of debates don't work on forums like this.

I am discussing the word 'marriage' and you interject with the accusation that somehow a proportion of our population are being treated as second class citizens.

You are using emotive language to try and strengthen your argument because you are not able to discuss the subject matter any other way.

It is this emotive language that is very dangerous to society.

It was not long ago in the UK that someone who criticised the amount of immigrants entering the country was called a racist, and so the subject was handled with kid gloves by the media. Now the opposite is happening and people are voting UKIP, to such an extent it has the government changing it policies on immigration.

Don't forget that not all gay people are in favour of getting married, in fact it is a very small percentage.

[Michael]

Travis wrote: "I don't think it's a matter of you do believe in fairies, but rather why wouldn't you?"

Cos I reached puberty some time ago would be my guess.

On the gay marriage subject, I'm with that poster from some time ago which roughly said "Some people are gay, get over it!" Those who oppose it should get something better to concern them, starting with their own business. Just saying. It's not even a religious issue, it's an issue of being civilised.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: Where will the line be? Today a tax on "overweight" people who fly. What will it be tomorrow? What group of people might upset our economy and our bottom-line? If we view people and life through that lens, do we devalue other people and lessen our own humanity?
"

I know, that is why I posted this, it's not an easy topic to have a absolute view on.

Shannon wrote: My next thought...? Is this discrimination? Then, I realized, in America, weight is not a protected category. So, ... no.

Interesting comment. In my mind I am connecting it with the marriage topic, above. It only becomes discrimination if there is a law to say it's discrimination.

On the other hand what if a normal weighted person is sitting next to a very over weight person who is encroaching into his seat space for nine hours on a cross Atlantic flight. Does that person not have rights as well.

Like smokers are given help, I think over weight people should be given all the help available to help them loose weight, if they want to. But their life choice should not impede on others.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "On the other hand what if a normal weighted person is sitting next to a very over weight person who is encroaching into his seat space for nine hours on a cross Atlantic flight. Does that person not have rights as well.

Like smokers are given help, I think over weight people should be given all the help available to help them loose weight, if they want to. But their life choice should not impede on others."

Hmmm....

Why just focus on people who are overweight?

Let's think this through a bit. Life choices impeding others. Impeding or inconveniencing others? Life choice or just a choice?

Thinking about the times I've flown in commercial aircraft....

I sat beside a very, very large man once. His body did take up some of my space. I can't say that I was overly comfortable. It wasn't a nine hour flight, three or something. Having said that, if that was the worst thing that every happened to me, I'd be a pretty lucky woman.

I've also been on flights with people who talked loudly, very loudly, for hours. Further, they were fairly full of themselves and talked a bunch of nonsense. I wasn't able to relax and rest or be comfortable on these flights. I've been on flights with people who lacked parenting skills and allowed their children to run wild and like maniacs in the aisles. Pre 9/11. Hey, I had to sit beside a little kid once. I was 25; he was five. His parents sat way the heck away from us. The mother came to me and said they were traveling with their baby, and she just couldn't handle both children herself; her husband just had to sit with her. Hmmm.... Frankly, I'd have to be unconscious to allow my Kindergartener to be that far away from me and with a stranger. But, you know, stuff happens. So, she and her husband had a lovely trip with a baby who didn't ever cry. I babysat their son. My choice. Yeah, I could have ignored his constant chatter and let him kick the seat in front of him and run in the aisle. Instead, I redirected him. Told him stories. Pulled out paper and a pen and worked on drawings with him, etc....

My point...? If I look back on my inconvenient experiences on planes, dealing with the overweight man taking my armrest and being squished to one side of my seat wasn't really that big of a deal. Other things are more bothersome to me.

Here's one. It hasn't happened on a plane. If it did, I'd be in trouble. I have asthma. Certain perfumes can set me off. That's not all. I once had a student who grew up on a farm and didn't bathe, himself or his clothing. He worked with animals and hay, etc.... I'd have full-blown asthma attacks on certain days if he was in my room in that condition. Imagine what would happen if someone sat beside me who was wearing a ton of perfume or worked with animals, etc.... Talk about encroaching ... on my ability to, literally, breathe and live.

So, ....

Why just overweight people?

Because, frankly, they wouldn't be my first pick.

Is it because they're easy to point at? To call out? And, ultimately, the article isn't talking about encroachment but $$. Whether there's a law or not, it would be pretty sketchy, in my opinion, to single out one group of people and only one group of people. And, ... who's the next group?

Also, who are we, as a people, if we go down that road. We have before. It's not been pretty. I'd say this is a slippery slope, potentially, at least.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: Is it because they're easy to point at? To call out? And, ultimately, the article isn't talking about encroachment but $$. Whether there's a law or not, it would be pretty sketchy, in my opinion, to single out one group of people and only one group of people. And, ... who's the next group?
."

It is not a case of ‘single’ out one group of people, it is, and you are right, about $$££. Which in this case is relevant to a particular group.

Can't remember which UK flight it was, but this flight could not take off because the combination of passenger weight was above the allowed safety limit. Three passengers had to leave the aircraft before it was allowed to take off...... so this is an issue. safety and the cost of fuel.

Say the weight of an average male passenger is 170lb (12st 2lb) and his baggage allowance is one 50lb bag, that totals 220lb. An additional 50lb bag will cost £40 ($60).

A passenger who's weight is 420lb (30st) and his bag is 50lb, total 470lb. So he is carrying an additional 250lb over the average. If he was paying for this it would cost £200 ($300).

One passenger, and this should not make a difference to anyone. But the issue here is that it is not just one passenger. There are enough over weight passengers on flights to make the airlines rethink their fare strategy.

Some people, during the debate I was listening to, suggested that it was up to the airlines to redesign their seats and planes to accommodate the new class of large passengers that are emerging. Do they have a point?

On my last flight I had to pay an additional £80 to upgrade to a seat with about 4 inches of extra legroom. And on a 9 hour flight it was worth it.

Shannon wrote: Having said that, if that was the worst thing that every happened to me, I'd be a pretty lucky woman.

I am not sure if that sentiment is a good yard stick to measure life by or not.

Think of the worse thing that has happened to you and if the problem you are facing at any given moment is not as bad, put up with it. :)

My mum is/was like that, if you broke a leg she would say, " by thankful that you didn't break both legs".

[cerebus]

cHriS wrote: "Ok fair enough, that’s an answer and maybe a well meaning answer from your personal point of view. But in the general scheme of things, it a rather stock reply. A bit like praying for peace. "
Doesn't make it wrong.

"It could be a simple as; some people just want to preserve the institute of marriage and one way is preserving the ‘word’ marriage in the context it has come to be known.

Nothing more and nothing less. I know the arguments for and against, this has been a topic of debate here already. It is one of these situations where a compromise is needed but can’t be found."
But my question is still why? Why keep the institute of marriage the way it is, or alternatively what is the objection to modifying it as proposed? There needs to be a reason, otherwise it is like saying "just because..." when asked a question by a child. If there is no reason, then that opinion should not be taken into consideration when deciding whether to make the change. It is irrelevant and unimportant. If however there is a reason, it should be revealed so it can be evaluated.

[cerebus]

Michael wrote: "No can do, not like that. You couldn't explain the difference WITHOUT the type of context you'd have to dismiss in the first place. Or, if it staves off the inevitable rebuttal: I couldn't. None of us would be here if it were that easy. It'd be like saying "I can only do this trick if I never ever think of a budgie when I do it. Now, you have a go... but don't think about that budgie!""
Ok, fair enough, explain the difference with context.

As for the "pillock" what exactly was it that made him a pillock? What he said? How he said it?

[cerebus]

Michael wrote: "For the record, I don't believe in fairies and believe Conan Doyle screwed the pooch with that one (even if the film "Fairy Tale", concerning that episode, is thoroughly charming.) Not that anyone has suggested I do believe in fey folk, but I figured I'd get a pre-emptive strike in, knowing that this dialogue often whirls and twists in Escher-like ways and the whole issue might get lost in it all."
With no intent to get into Escheresque shenanigans, what is your reason for not believing in fairys?

[cerebus]

cHriS wrote: "But, on this one particular aspect of science; science has no more idea of where we came from than religion has. Religion sticks with a creator idea while science has many theories, but none proven.

If it is a race, at best science and religion are neck and neck. Which ever horse we back, the chances are that we will never see the end of the race anyway."
Not sure which theories you're referring to with your mention of "where we come from"? Abiogenesis or the Big Bang? In either case I would say that it is not neck and neck (there's a surprise eh? :)) in that science proposes testable theories, which can be investigated and with the possibility of evidence, whereas religion, or the concept of a creator, does not. There is no evidence which would disprove a creator for most believers, as all they have to do is take another step back (or above, or beyond, whatever, there is nothing implied by 'back') and say, "ok, but the creator was responsible for that bit". With the evidence for the big bang extending back to almost the instant where it all 'started', a believer can say "but something cannot come from nothing, so god"....if science comes up with evidence to take it back to that starting point, either to prove something from nothing, or to perhaps show that there was something before, whatever...a believer can still say "but it was god that set that part in motion" or "it was god that set the conditions that enabled that". It's the turtles all the way down concept again, there is no point at which a believer cannot impose the concept of a creator. But it is not the point of science to disprove god, it has just never been a required explanation at any point in any research or theory.

cHriS wrote :".....and there is a reason, and a very large percentage of the population (UK at least) think the same way and we have covered this here before, but that we where the debate breaks down and the word homophobic rears it ugly head."
What is that reason? In all honesty I cannot remember what it was when this was last discussed. I am not suggesting it is homophobia, I am not suggesting it is anything, but there needs to be a reason. Majority is not a reason by itself to reject what is effectively discrimination. If the majority wanted to tax left-handers at a higher rate, I would expect a reason to be given, examined and evaluated. Without a reason, it should not even be given the time of day.

cHriS wrote :"We are all equal but we are not all the same and I wish that some parts of society would stop trying to make us all the same.

The issue is not refusing equal rights, as far as I am aware we all have the same rights, the argument is the words used, not the rights."
Marriage is a civil option available to two people but which discriminates based on sexual preferences. That is a rights issue. It is exactly the same as saying mixed race marriages should not be allowed. We may not be "all the same" but that lack of sameness should not be used as a reason for discrimination.

[cerebus]

cHriS wrote: "I am discussing the word 'marriage' and you interject with the accusation that somehow a proportion of our population are being treated as second class citizens.

You are using emotive language to try and strengthen your argument because you are not able to discuss the subject matter any other way."
Without emotion it is possible to discuss the reasons why it should be rejected. I have not seen any reason yet that makes sense, from any of the discussions I have seen on this (with the caveat that as I mentioned before I do not recall the reason you gave earlier, it may well be the exception).

[cerebus]

cHriS wrote: "It only becomes discrimination if there is a law to say it's discrimination."
So segregation as practiced in the US before laws were changed was not discrimination? It only became such as soon as a law was introduced?

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "cHriS wrote: "It only becomes discrimination if there is a law to say it's discrimination."
So segregation as practiced in the US before laws were changed was not discrimination? It only became suc..."

Legally speaking, he's accurate ... in the US, at least. Again, we're talking about the law.

For example, in the US, there are "protected categories" of people. Discrimination is investigated and dealt with, in a school or a court, depending on whether or not it involves one of the protected categories. Race. Sexual orientation. Gender. Religion. Etc.... If it doesn't fit the protected category, it's not investigated or dealt with as discrimination.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Legally speaking, he's accurate..."
Morally?

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Legally speaking, he's accurate..."
Morally?"

Morally? That's totally different. Morally? It's discrimination, law or no law.

When we treat people unjustly or with prejudice, it's discrimination ... when dealing with morality. In my opinion....

So, the question is .... Segregation is, morally, discriminatory. Is flagging overweight people and taxing them in order to save $ and make $ and allow thin people to be comfortable discrimination? Legally? No. Morally...?

As I said, I can see charging a person for two tickets if they require two seats. Two seats; two tickets. Is it morally acceptable to single out a certain portion of the population, those who are overweight, because they cramp others or, supposedly, cost airline mucks money?

A slippery slope ....

Interesting topic, though ... possible topic.

Legality vs. Morality ....

[cerebus]

Without coming down on either side of the weight/airline issue, at least there are reasons being given for why it has been proposed that people are charged by weight. This at least allows a discussion to be had. If the response to why same-sex marriage should be rejected is "because" then that same discussion cannot be had. If someone had proposed the extra weight charge, but gave no reason, then we could ignore the suggestion.

[Roxanne]

science...I could do without it

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Without coming down on either side of the weight/airline issue, at least there are reasons being given for why it has been proposed that people are charged by weight. This at least allows a discuss..."

Mmmm.... Regarding marriage, obviously, I've heard people argue against gay marriage for religious reasons. However, I've also heard people, more recently, discuss the problem of allowing "anyone" to marry. If it's opened to gay couples, would it be opened to three people or more, etc...? Would it be discriminatory to tell a man he can't marry multiple wives? (Personally, I don't much care; it's not my business ... unless it involves children or abuse.)

Treating people differently, singling them out and telling them they can't do something or must pay a tax in order to do something, reminds me of really horrid times in our history. Personally, I don't really care about the reasons. Some reasons are seemingly valid and some seem ridiculous. Like I said, though, it's a slippery slope.

[[deleted user]]

Roxanne wrote: "science...I could do without it"

Three days after we had my grandfather's funeral, we found out my aunt has uterine cancer. She just had a hysterectomy yesterday. Initial reports look good. I'm currently in a "watchful waiting" period regarding a uterine fibroid that was discovered in September. Just had my followup sono yesterday. Waiting to find out if we continue with watchful waiting or do a hysterectomy if the fibroid has grown.

I'm not going to give up my faith; however, I'm very glad I don't have to do without science. Not very long ago, my aunt would have died, eventually, from this cancer. Heck, my parents were just on antibiotics for an upper respiratory bug that's been going around. My coworker's husband was hospitalized last week for a horrid case of pneumonia. I've had four students in the last month who contracted strep, something that could kill without antibiotics.

I look at all of that and feel very lucky that people I care about have access to meds and modern medicine.

[cerebus]

Roxanne wrote: "science...I could do without it"
Not to post on here you couldn't.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Like I said, though, it's a slippery slope."
It doesn't need to be though, if someone wants to make an argument for plural marriage they can make it, and those opposed to it can argue against it. That's an argument to be held on its own merit. Where people sometimes try to lead the slippery slope argument though is to involve, for example, pets....but that is a nonsense argument as it is not an equivalency with same-sex marriage since one involves informed consent from all parties, the other doesn't (and can't).

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Like I said, though, it's a slippery slope."
It doesn't need to be though, if someone wants to make an argument for plural marriage they can make it, and those opposed to it can arg..."

When I said it was a slippery slope, I wasn't referring to marriage. As in, I wasn't saying allowing gay marriage would be a slippery slope, leading to plural marriages, etc....

I'm referring to treating people differently. Singling people out for different treatment, fewer rights, a "fat" tax ... that's a slippery slope in my opinion.

I don't much care about the argument. All sorts of arguments have been used throughout history. Think about it ....

The child with HIV who wasn't allowed to go to school. Hey.... At the time, people didn't know a lot about HIV and parents were afraid he might fall and scrape his knee, and .... That's an argument. Does that particular argument really matter? Would even entertaining such an argument somehow diminish us, our humanity and morality?

I don't know. Maybe it's worth the discussion ... at least in a general sense. But, I can't help but feel sick inside.

[[deleted user]]

Sick is the wrong word. I'm troubled by it ... troubled by it for several reasons, first and foremost, the idea that people might not see the dangers involved.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: I'm sorry to hear you feel the idea of stopping telling a portion of the population that their families don't count and they should be treated as second class citizens "

You are illu..."

All straight people are not in favor of marriage, but they have the right to. Only they are stopping them, not the law.

and if you just want to talk about the word marriage, go ahead. Just don't include statements about rights in your postings like you did previously.