|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 293 responses total. |
jmsaul
|
|
response 268 of 293:
| 
Dec 20 06:03 UTC 2003 |
Some Islamic societies do it better than others -- look at Indonesia, for
example, or Malaysia. And while the fundamentalist ones reject outside
ideas, the comparison to the Amish is flawed because they don't reject
outside technology.
Re #262: There are strong arguments that geography and natural resources
gave Europeans an advantage in developing technology and spreading
their culture. For example, they had access to a wider range of
food crops, and had better disease immunity because of the
availability of a range of livestock. _Guns, Germs, and Steel_
develops this theory at length, and does it better than I can
summarize here. As you noted, I'm only using it to supplement
my point -- but I'm also mentioning it because I think it's a
great book, and you would enjoy it a lot.
|
jp2
|
|
response 269 of 293:
|
Dec 20 13:53 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
bru
|
|
response 270 of 293:
|
Dec 20 14:30 UTC 2003 |
didn't islam come late to indonesia and malaysia? That may be part of the
reason that it ahsn't had the same impacrt as in the middle east.
|
keesan
|
|
response 271 of 293:
|
Dec 20 14:56 UTC 2003 |
Many of the foods that I eat came from the Americas - corn, the common bean
(which largely replaced the blackeyed pea and fava bean even in Europe),
squash, tomatoes, potatoes, peppers, chocolate, quinoa, amaranth.
The 'better disease immunity' might refer to the fact that when people
immigrated to N. American via the Bering land bridge they no longer needed
immunity to many disease they left behind, or that many new ones developed
later in Europe and Asia due to the more crowded conditions which allowed them
to become endemic.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 272 of 293:
|
Dec 20 15:14 UTC 2003 |
Diamond's thesis is the latter, Sindi: Crowding, in close proximity to
animals, allowed diseases to jump species. Exposure to the diseases caused
the development of immunities. However, immunity does not mean elimination.
So people could bring the germs with them without actually being sick.
Example: smallpox, which would seem to be related to cowpox (since vaccinating
with the latter provides immunity to the former).
|
lk
|
|
response 273 of 293:
|
Dec 21 13:05 UTC 2003 |
To return to the original topic for a second, the AFA is conducting a
poll regarding gay marriage. I happen to think that the value of these
non-scientific internet vote-early-and-often polls is null, but since
other people may think they're important (and AFA plans to inform
Congress of their results), let them know what you think:
http://www.afa.net/petitions/marriagepoll.asp
As for book references as debate, there was the Star Trek episode where
they spoke in metaphors by relating stories. So bantering book titles
back and forth wouldn't be so odd....
|
slynne
|
|
response 274 of 293:
|
Dec 21 14:35 UTC 2003 |
Do you think the AFA will really share their results with Congress if
the results show that a lot of people favor legalization of homosexual
marriage?
|
twenex
|
|
response 275 of 293:
|
Dec 21 14:43 UTC 2003 |
It's by all means clear how one would actually use a language based
entirely on metaphor. How did they tell the stories that led to the
metaphors in the first place, is one question.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 276 of 293:
|
Dec 21 16:05 UTC 2003 |
Apparently, the AFA is also tampering with poll results.
|
twenex
|
|
response 277 of 293:
|
Dec 21 16:11 UTC 2003 |
Of course, i meant in #275 that it's by *no* means clear.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 278 of 293:
|
Dec 21 18:02 UTC 2003 |
Re #275: I had the same problem with that episode. Such a metaphoric
language seemed extremely limited in ability to communicate. There are endless
situations for which a metaphor would not be available, for example, to
discuss metaphors. Would mathematics be possible?
The news media are reporting polls showing a majority of those polled oppose
gay marriage and favor a Constitutional amendment to ban it. However the
"majority" is something like 55%, which is not enough (if translated into
congressional action and state voting) to adopt such an amendment.
It also strikes me that the purpose of the Constitution is to rein in the
passions of the majority, unless they are well seasoned over a
considerable period of time. The urge of a majority to amend the
constitution to resolve every controversy is antithetical to the nature of
a Constitution.
|
jp2
|
|
response 279 of 293:
|
Dec 21 19:22 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 280 of 293:
|
Dec 21 20:13 UTC 2003 |
Re 276: How can you tell? I'm not willing to give them the information they
asked for, so I won't be polled.
|
remmers
|
|
response 281 of 293:
|
Dec 21 21:02 UTC 2003 |
Re #278: Right, that kind of thing doesn't belong in the Constitution.
A few years ago I was asked by a couple of lesbian friends of mine to
sign a petition to add a "right of gays to marry" amendment to the
Constitution. Although I support the concept of gay marriage, I
refused to sign, on the same grounds that I would oppose an
amendment forbidding such a right.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 282 of 293:
|
Dec 22 00:12 UTC 2003 |
Re #280: If I find the link again, I'll post it, but someone was watching
their poll and noticed the total number of votes going down over
hours, with greater reductions in the votes for the "yes, gays
should be allowed to marry" and "okay, as long as they call it
something other than pweshious marriage" answers.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 283 of 293:
|
Dec 22 01:35 UTC 2003 |
That's good enough. Thanks, Joe.
|
gull
|
|
response 284 of 293:
|
Dec 22 16:38 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:267: I think this is a problem with fundamentalism in general.
Re resp:278: As a friend of mine put it, this is an "oops, we
accidentally gave too many rights to a minority" amendment. I think
putting such a thing in the Constitution is distasteful. There aren't
any current Amendments that *take rights away*.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 285 of 293:
|
Dec 22 17:35 UTC 2003 |
re #284:
> There aren't any current Amendments that *take rights away*.
Not currently, no. But of course the reason you needed to add
that qualification is because of Prohibition, which should serve
as a reminder to all of us that even the substantial barriers
we have in place are no guarantee that poorly thought-out
amendments won't make it into the Constitution.
|
jp2
|
|
response 286 of 293:
|
Dec 22 18:31 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
bru
|
|
response 287 of 293:
|
Dec 22 20:10 UTC 2003 |
I sure hope that if we do end up with an ammendment prohibiting gay marriage,
that we do not end up with organized crime smuggling in homosexuals from
across the border...
|
twenex
|
|
response 288 of 293:
|
Dec 22 20:26 UTC 2003 |
I hope if the US ends up with an amendment banning bigotry and general
right-wing stupidity they don't end up smuggling Tories from Canada.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 289 of 293:
|
Dec 22 22:01 UTC 2003 |
Watch me make bru's head spin..
re #287: that's right! with benefits costs so much lower
(because they're not allowed to have legally-recognized spouses
or in many places to adopt children) employers will have a strong
incentive to employ lower-cost homosexual workers and as a believer
in unregulated market forces, you'll have to support their decision!
|
twenex
|
|
response 290 of 293:
|
Dec 22 22:06 UTC 2003 |
Heh. Wondrous.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 291 of 293:
|
Dec 22 22:09 UTC 2003 |
(I'd think you'd _want_ to get rid of some Tories, twenex. ;)
|
twenex
|
|
response 292 of 293:
|
Dec 22 22:14 UTC 2003 |
I don't live inthe US or Canada, joe.
|