kryo and Kantok appear to have read Heinlein.

I suggest others do the same: "Starship Troopers" (not the idiot movie) and "Methusaleh's Children". Responsibility and understanding "the way things work" as opposed to "how you think they work". "how you want them to work" or "how they should work" is critical. Those aren't negatives as they can lead to progress... if and only if you understand how they really work... sorry... that's just the way it is.

No one is trying to be a hard ass. People have different mentalities and chemistries. That being said, you can't build with/on silly putty. Bricks are bricks and reality is reality. Consistent and persistent mollycoddling does not produce responsible adults, nor good results... but neither does brutality.

Oh yes.... wanted to ask: Does anyone know who's getting away with treason, and who's letting them? Grizzyloins, you never did say...

Haha, are you really expecting some insightful answer, Doc?  It's the crazy ramblings of a conspiracy theorist.  It gibberish. I'm going to guess that there is an evil Jew/Black/Catholic or someone in some magic secret club that serves the devil/Jews that is in control and conquering us.  That seems the way that these intellectually disabled rants end, right?

Oh thank you, i wouldnt have known.

You can do better then that, i hope.

Why?  You didn't with your "Really? You fully expect to have a child everytime you have sex?" response which purposefully misconstrued what he said.

But sure I'll further explain my point. 

Just because he made a point bluntly doesn't mean he's being trollish.  He said what he believes in clear language.  He's argued it consistently throughout the thread.  Having sex has the CHANCE of producing a child.  Therefore if you are having sex you should have considered the CONSEQUENCES of sex, which is a child, and planned accordingly. 

He's consistent, clear, and relevant.  That's about as far from trollish as you can get.  Hence I figured that you were using "Trollish" as a way to dismiss what he was saying without actually having to respond to what he said.   

Point is: No one is intelligent, wise and learned enough to understand ALL the consequences of his own action. You have to start to trust (sp?) in other peoples advice at some point. For some people it is just earlier then for others.

Are you giving your last farewell to your familie everytime you enter a plane?

Ok, you have a very high standard you judge people against, but if this is the case i will apologize for calling you out.

I know that neither me, nor anyone i know (and there are some amazingly intelligent people around) can expect every consequence of every action, no matter how well thought out and planed. That is just not possible.

But i am leaving the territory where my english is sufficient to keep this discussion going. So i am bowing out and leave the field.

Have a nice day.

Of course you can't predict everything and know all consequences.  That's a strawman argument.  But you can, and should, understand the likely consequences of your actions. We're not talking psychohistory here.  We're talking about sex -> children.  It's so simple that we understand it at a subconscious level.  It's literally genetic. 

I know there is a chance that I may get hit by a bus when I walk across the street.  Therefore, I look both ways before crossing.  I also know that this risk mitigation plan may fail (I don't see a car, one is speeding, someone pulls out unexpectedly, etc) and therefore I pay for health insurance.  I also know that this may fail and I may die.  Therefore I pay for accidental death insurance.  Have I covered every eventuality?  Probably not.  But I've covered the obvious ones.  And if I'm not willing to deal with the potential hidden consequences, I just won't walk across the street.  I'll drive or use the crosswalk or deal with whatever caused me to be out walking in some other means (ordering via the internet, for example).  Otherwise, I'm accepting the risk that something might happen to me when I cross the street. 

The larger argument here, generalized from sex, is that people want the right to do whatever they want to do, without having to deal with the consequences afterwards.  However reality dictates consequences.  Someone has to pay for them.  Whenever possible, the person/people who pay those consequences (monetary or otherwise) should be those that took the initial action in the first place. 

"Does anyone know who's getting away with treason, and who's letting them? Grizzyloins, you never did say..." 

Those that take an oath of loyalty to a certain nation but then attempt to twist said nation in order to follow another agenda are the treasonous b*st*rds.  I believe nearly all (a vast majority) of the members of our govenment (U.S.) and others, use their position to enhance their own agenda or the agenda of this or that organization rather than to do as those that elected them wish.  I believe that the One World Government cannot be built by only one leader during his time no matter how powerfull his words or how powerfull any one country, but if you have  lets say a secret group(s) with generations upon generations all working towards the same goal, gaining members in every meaningful country, taking out those that get in the way through what ever means, owning all finances through members controlling banks/making laws/printing money/etc. then it's only a matter of time. 

As far as  "It's the crazy ramblings of a conspiracy theorist.  It gibberish. I'm going to guess that there is an evil Jew/Black/Catholic or someone in some magic secret club that serves the devil/Jews that is in control and conquering us.  That seems the way that these intellectually disabled rants end, right?" I don't deny being a conspricay theorist, and I might be rambling craziness, but there have been at least two members of the skull & dagger (or skull & bones, can't remember which) secret group leading this country (U.S.) and one of wich (Bush senior) has stated that there will be a One World Order, & that they will win.  This certainly doesn't sound like anything in the constitution to me since that is what we are 'governed' by now & he refers to this as the 'law of the jungle' to be replaced by the new world order.  If you take an oath to a secret society & you take an oath to the country, then wich do you adher to?  I don't know everything & don't pretend to, but I refuse to just close my eyes & trust in those that are in power calling any who say 'what a minute, that doesn't seem right' a nut job. 

Power = corruption / Absolute Power = Absolute corruption

trailertrash  -or -  whilte trash attempts to inflitrate upscale Town congregation.

When I was serving in my first congregation (30 years ago) as senior Minister.  (Note: my religious affilation - at this time - had fully ordained women since well into the last Millennium -it was progressive.)    My organist (organ player / music minister) was really ailing, crippling arthritus.  She chose to retire.  I began searching for a new organist. 

I auditioned a handfull of candidates.  The field of candidates was very small, since my congregation was in a realtivly isolated rural region of the state.  Every candidate could belt out a few of the 'moldy and oldie' tunes that the dying generation was clinging to.  One musician, however, stood head and shoulders above all the others.  A truly gifted and acomplished musician, she played the stately pipe organ and made it sing.  Her command of the instrument was marevlious.  The organ sang and sang.  Additionally, she would bring to the table an excellent portofolio of classical music as well as an expanded set of traditional pieces.  None of us had ever heard that pipe organ voice its full range before.  Awesome.  A number of yuppies (four out of five) on the music committe were elated. 

They, too, loved her 'presence' when playing.  They respected her degree from the Eastman School of Music.  And they were in awe of her playing.  The chairperson of the music committe and I, prior to the monthly meeting of the Administriaive Board, (Ruling body of congregation), phoned and discussed the candidate with the people on the Board.  When the Board formally met, they seemed happy, some even excited, with the quality of musician we were about to bring on board.  Then one of the Board members asked where she (the candidate) lived.  I was so naive.    I was taken aback by the intensity of the 'concerns' (hostility veiled under a veneer of religious-speak /double-speak?/) some members used, and kept coming back to as discussion continued.  

She lived in the trailer park at the edge of town.  White trash, trailer trash, etc became a significat part of the conversation about her.  The Chosen are blessed, so they can't be living in a trailer park!  Some of their comments were so diametrically opposed to both the basic principles upon which the congregation existed, and the foundational teachings of our faith, that I was shocked. I felt terror, shame, and grief.  I did not cry at that meeting.  I prefer a consensus model of group process, and of decision making.  No consensus was possible here.  The vampire that is in all of us was bearing its fangs.  Roberts rules to the rescue.  A very comfortable majority, (over 2/3s), approved her appointement for one year.    I thought I knew these people.  Worst of all, was this fine musician had to sit, answer questions, and listen to herself discussed in such a manner.   She must have been mortified.

 I'm not fond of judging a book by its cover.  (You do know what a book is, don't you?)  Lady with two toddlers, abandoned by her childrens father, attempts to rebuild her life, nuture her boy and girl, and re-connect with her love of music.  Sounds like a quality person to me. 

But others dont see the person, they see the cover:  she lives in the trailer park, is white, so she must be whilte trash, yes?  I'll bet she even got food stamps, what a leech!

The only people I know getting food stamps & living in trailers are ones that are almost done with their PhD candidacy or DVM degrees. Yeah, pretty lazy people that are a drain on society... 

There is no evidence to suggest a one-world government is coming. Even if it were, why do conspiracy theorist always seem to view it as some sort of Third Reich? Many countries would benefit immeasurably from any form of centralised goverment. Maybe it'll be a utopia like in Star trek. Maybe it won't work at all. No one can predict the future. I have an extremely hard time imagining a one-world government forming given the huge ideological and cultural differences.  
 

Okay... firstly the skull & bones is a silly Yale frathouse for wealthy brats and is about as inclusive as a 19th century Men's club. Idiots like Alex Jones seem to see it as something sinister because they never went to an Ivy League university and are completely clueless as to the culture of said institutes. It's not a well-kept secret. Secondly, Bush Senior's comment on a New World Order was at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union when indeed a new world order was seemingly coming into view. The term is not new and can be interpreted in any number of ways.

An oath to a secret society should only be taken in context should they come into conflict with the following of the laws of a country. Members of the Skull and bones society are probably hugely embarrassed at what they got up to a College. Probably involves buggery for all we know.

Why should taxpayers be paying for someone to eat while they get their PhD exactly?  

Anyone that believes we're due for a giant boost of globalization only needs to look at the EU and EFSF to see that the world is actually trending away from one-world scenarios and towards nationalism at the moment.  

George W. Bush did.   You asked...I answered....

So you think Obama has too?  He's continued and/or expanded every national security practice the Bush administration implemented.  You just don't hear about it anymore for some odd reason.

MHO but I don't think Obama has committed treason.   I don't contest what you say, but it doesn't measure up to flat out lying about WMD and resulting in the deaths of well over 100,000 people.   The crimes he committed cannot be overstated.

(1) In this day and age, while using contraception, this is simply not the case. It is not likely. It is a 1: 100 chance and that even only due to rounding up. So thats basically where we disagree. If you get pregnant anyway, while under contraception it is unexpected. Thats all i am saying.

(2) I dont think that is the case for most people. I knew / know people who fell on very (and sadly also terminal) hard times due to reasons totally unexpected, due to chances so unbelievable slim, that even physicians didnt thought about it. And when they did at last, it was too late to do anything.

Hm, thinking about (2) i see the reason why i am so pissed at such statements. I lost a very dear person due to chances we couldnt possible think about.

Bowing out for real now, i dont want to aim my grudge at you. I respect your opinion.

Thanks for the discussion, i learned something about myself today.

They can and you are.  

Go read the actual reports about what we knew and when.  The administration had every reason to suspect there were WMDs in Iraq.  My unit in Iraq found chemical warheads for artillery pieces (that insurgents were trying to turn into IEDs at the gate of our base) while we were there.  

According to US policy established long before Bush was ever president Nuclear Weapons = Biological Weapons = Chemical Weapons.  Because we dont' weaponize biological or chemical weapons anymore, we consider them equal to nuclear weapons.  However, in the grand scheme of international relations nuclear weapons are NOT the only form of weapons of mass destruction.  Just because we didn't find a warehouse full of nuclear tipped ICMBs doesn't mean we found nothing. 

The "Bush Lied, People Died" mantra is partisan crap not founded in reality.  Bush did plenty wrong as our president (and whether or not we should have been in Iraq is a valid discussion), but he never lied to get us there.  

This explains where you're coming from right there.  It's an awfully tough pill to swallow to say that your full-time career you do for a living is founded on a lie--and when it's military personnel that makes it all the more politically incorrect on top of that--but unfortunately that is what I'm saying.    Partisanship has nothing to do with it.

Hide your ignorance however you'd like.  Your veneer of elitist informed opinion is nothing more than crap.  You pretend to be the "truth teller" by claiming you're standing up to political correctness by spewing your nonsense when in reality you're just following the other sheeple clinging to uninformed opinions because that's easier than looking at the truth.  

We, the United States, found evidence of chemical and biological weapons programs in Iraq.  The entire international community considers chemical and biological weapons to be weapons of mass destruction.  Ergo, we found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  But don't let this nearly straight line of logic intrude on your happy bubble.  You keep on fighting the man and rationalizing away anything that doesn't conform to your worldview.  

Enjoy.  

I'll accept that we disagree and that's that.  

Thank you for the discussion as well.  

The US relied too heavily on compulsive liar Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi because they wanted to believe it was true. I guess when you're in charge of the most powerful country on earth having daddy issues is not condusive to wise leadership.

Why?

Because in a society which values education (especially that which produces ideas that sell or improve our condition in some other way, or an educator to open and cultivate other minds) we realize that by helping others we reap concrete benefits.

Beyond that partially mercantile reason, there is also a Social Contract in civilized societies.

"A social contract is a voluntary agreement in which mutual benefit occurs between and for individuals, groups, government or a community as a whole.  According to any of various theories, as of Hobbes Locke or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members." - Webster's, 2003 

Parenthetically, I do feel that he/she should (old school morality) be helping by working as much as he/she can without compromising the PhD.

I get that there's a social contract and I also get the benefit to society angle (though the vast majority of the PhD candidates I know are not in subjects that will produce a mercantile benefit).  I just don't buy that we should directly support them while they do it.  No one is supporting my wife and I while I go for my Master's degree.  I worked and saved so that we would be able to afford to live on one income while I was in school.  

Don't we meet our social contract obligations by providing the safety (police/firemen), infrastructure, and other government services necessary for their university conditions to exist in the first place?  By your reasoning the existence of a social contract can be used to justify any demand on the government (and by extension other citizens) that you want.  At some point the reach of the social contract has to end and your own ability and planning has to take over.  

You should (imo) be receiving help/assistance as well as an extension of the G.I. Bill (the post WWII one, not the current washed out one).... there's no logic to privation, and no reason why a student should suffer. Nor is there one for him/her "to sit idly by". There is an almost infinite number of productive and useful things such a student could do, from instructing in schools, tutioring or flipping burgers. No work is dishonorable and it need not necessarily be a "paid"  position... depending on the degree of assistance he/she is receiving. I also see no reason why it shouldn't be returned (although as a matter of living, it is).

Means testing? By all means (no pun intended)... in all public assistance/entitlement programs. Blending assistance with assets (inversely proportional - more of the former iff less of the latter, and vice versa)... again, firmly supported by me.

I currently receive some, though not full, GI Bill benefits.  But that only furthers my point.  I planned ahead, joined the Army, and did something difficult and at times unpleasant in the then present to earn future benefits so that I would have more flexibility going forward.  

I agree on means testing assistance.  Assistance should also  be conditional on effort though (especially in the specific example here).  PhD students are clearly capable individuals.  They should be doing SOMETHING for the assistance they receive (as opposed to just receiving food stamps).  Work study, flipping burgers at a school cafeteria, tutoring, and teaching are all options open to most PhD's and in all instances have no problem with the assistance they receive.  They're doing something to contribute towards their benefits.

My mistake on glossing over your point about old school morality.  Seems like we largely agree unless I'm completely missing your point.