confused04

Originally posted by: erbush I have a hard time believing that global warming is influenced by humans. While scientists tell us that our CO2 out put is causing changes consider this: One Volcanic eruption the size of Mt. St. Helens puts more CO2 in the air in 10 hours than 100 years of Human contribution. Also consider this: Proof of glaciers which spanned across the US among other countries which they came as far south as northern TN and Kansas.. where have they gone? they have melted .. thousands of years ago... why? because of warming that occured thousands of years ago. was that mans fault? I doubt it. Just as I doubt it now. The Earth has cycles.. temp goes up.. then it goes back down.. it takes hundreds of years. I really have a hard time believing that global warming is our fault. Did I say that global warming is not true? no... Just not our fault.quote> Simply not true... http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090731071625AAj9cIC Yes, I know that its a yahoo answers, but they cite and did all the hard work for me. The USGS has time and time again shown that human carbon dioxide emissions are WELL above volcanic emissions (on the order of 100 to 1), certainly not the inverse of 1 to 100 YEARS (or 1 to 10,000). Volcanoes only have a brief effect on climate due to the number of suspended aerosols that block out enough light to measure a decrease in temperature but once it settles, the climate returns to whatever it was doing prior to the eruptions. Even Mt. Pinatubo, the strongest eruption in recent memory only affected a year or two and it was less than a decade later that the World's hottest year ever occurred. No scientist, supporter or denier of anthropomorphic climate change suggests that climate never changes... thats just absurd. Thats the problem with climate change deniers because they assume that if you ascribe to human induced climate change, that you AUTOMATICALLY discount natural climate change, and no serious scientist does. However, there is plenty of evidence that what we are doing is occurring at a phenomenal rate. The most serious concern is one that we can't understand til it actually happens. If the climate does have global warming inertia, meaning that even if we ceased to emit CO2 and temperatures still warm for a couple decades afterwards... that has serious consequences for a world that plans to emit CO2 for the foreseeable future. And lets say that in 5 years we have record warm temperatures globally... would that be enough to alter emissions? What if it was 20 years... but at that point, the climate inertia may already suggest its well beyond too late to stop the most disastrous effects of global warming. Thats the real problem... waiting to find out the answer is a huge gamble. If we wait and nothing happens, good news.... if we wait and we see even moderate warming... it may already be too late given that there is a lag. EDIT: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php This is regarding Volcanoes v Humans CO2 emissions.

I'm gonna have to disagree with a lot of the statements here.... Should there be campaign finance limitations... yes, don't get me wrong there. Should there be campaign restrictions from big donors, yes. BUT, should corporations not be allowed to donate? No. Free speech is free speech, regardless of what group/individual it is. I am disappointed at the Supreme Courts decision, but I don't think that any one, regardless of popularity, size, structure, or wealth should be restricted from financing a campaign. The main problem with campaign finance is just enforcing what we have on the books. Lobbyists cannot give gifts or even buy meals for Congress members, but does that stop them from finding loop holes, of course not. My main issue with a constitutional amendment is defining "corporations" and "special interests." At what point is a non-profits donations more or less moral than a large company? What is a "large company". What about unions? What about organized labor not in unions (i.e. not official)? Why can't individuals come together as a group and donate? Perhaps this is my libertarian side coming out, but the idea of restricting donations with a constitutional amendment is somewhat scary. I'm not arguing that there is no problem with the current campaign finance system, but I'm not in any way supportive of banning financing from "non-individuals", nor do I have any alternative solutions besides a no-nonsense approach to current federal, state, and local laws.

Thank you everyone! I really appreciate the reward and I'm waiting my prize money... just make it out to Kenny! Just kidding Congratulations to everyone and thanks to all who nominated me and for all those in chat that keep me company. Even if you didn't get a trixie, don't worry, we all still love you (except Beebs...)

Yet another night out on the town. I know, its been awhile folks... (I'm on the right). This was when one of my good friends came back in town and we had a mini college reunion.

Originally posted by: hamsterTK I was too lazy to change my voter registration when I moved so bummer... there was some interesting stuff on the ballot for Texas that I actually had an opinion on and wanted to vote over, things concerning eminent domain and land use around military installations.quote> I forgot to do that too but Minnesota has same day registration so I got to vote anyway. My local elections were not terribly exciting. Both mayors of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, R.T. Ryback and Chris Coleman (not to be confused with Norm), but cruised to re-election. Ryback didn't even campaign angering the other 10 candidates. The big news from yesterday was that Minneapolis for the first time used ranked choice voting instead of "Single vote". This meant that you chose your top three candidates. I don't really know if it proved to be a boon for third parties or not but at least there wasn't a primary. Thankfully the vote ran smoothly so hopefully this system is here to stay. Ryback won with 73% of the vote and Coleman won with 68%. Both mayors are DFL. Across the river in Saint Paul, voters (including myself) chose to adopt this same system with a pretty narrow vote of 53% in favor (needed 50% to pass). The big news from last night came from the Maine Referendum on the gay marriage law. The voters have overturned the law the legislature and governor passed giving gays the right to marry. I personally don't think issues of civil rights/liberties should ever be allowed to go on the ballot and must remain in the court of law. Can you imagine desegregation going on the ballot? There's a reason why its called minority rights :\.... Very disappointing results out of Maine. NY-23 also elected a Democrat for the first time in 120 years. This was a result of party infighting between the two predominate wings of the Republican Party. After the Republican endorsed Dede Scozzafava was labelled "too liberal" by conservatives and had her support siphoned off by the Conservative Doug Hoffman, she dropped out endorsed the Democrat. With big names coming in to support Hoffman like Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty, this comes as a big rebuke against the "Teabagging" wing of the party. Had the Republicans been united and stuck with the Republican endorsed candidate to begin with, Scozzafava would have won the election with more than 52% of the vote.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus Originally posted by: Meg All soceities have some form of social stigma. Many soceities think it is inappropriate to perform certain bodily functions in public. How is that tyrannical? quote> What many people here do not realize is that there is a difference between the fact that an activity is offensive or unsanitary, and having the government suppress that activity. I do not believe that social stigma is tyrranical. What is tyrranical is these stigmas being ingrained into the law, and it is frankly not the proper place of government to codify these stigmas. I believe this falls into the "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" category of laws.quote> Whose rights are being violated here? No one's. If you don't want to look at someone masturbating (which I wouldn't), then walk away, and if he harasses you continuously, there are appropiate court actions that can be taken. Then there is the concept that law has no right to interfere with what consenting adults in private. But this involves non-consenting, non-adults, in public.quote> That justification is flawed in the following ways: 1) The idotic concept that the government has the right to put into their oppressive grip a whole class of people they deem to be inferior (in this case, people born <18 years ago). 2) Masturbation is a one-person sexual activity, and thus does not require the consent of anyone other than the man doing this. If he was having sexual intercourse with them without their consent, I'd call that rape, and I'd be just as outraged as many are here. 3) What we are dealing with here is not a non-consenting sexual activity. Instead of being forced into a sexual act, they are being shocked by having to watch a sexual act. There is a simpler solution than the iron fist of oppressive government -- walk away. No one has tied them in a cell and forced them to watch this. In a word, this guy is very, very lonely. This kind of display is usually supressed by parents at an early age, so you wonder what kind of a home life he had as a child, if any.quote> Well, if he did have the kind of parents that most people had, obviously it didn't work on him. Amusing. I just hope they don't catch him "in the act"... that would be a rather uncomfortable image.quote> It sure would. Let's just hope that out of respect for our sensibilities (read: not fear of the state) they do not publish any pictures. To be fair, that's not just a social stigma issue but also a public health issue - for the same reason you're supposed to clean up after you're dog. Having streets covered in excrement isn't sanitary. It breeds disease.quote> No one can argue with that, but surely the government can clean up their own streets. This sick animal doesn't deserve to be called a manquote> He is undisputably male. He is an animal (as all humans are), but I don't think he's sick. Seriously, there are alot better things to be doing. Like, for example, contributing to society. quote> I agree with that. Instead of terrorizing the public, perhaps he could be contributing to his own welfare, like, for instance, getting a career. wow! i mean doing... that is fun and all, but cmon! what sick person does that sort of thing! fortunatly i have an elegant solution to this problem for my northern friends! were gonna need a TASER and a laser pointer...quote> Perhaps my southern friend can explain why we need a laser pointer, when in your scenario we've already electrically shocked him. quote> Really, I think you're taking the "government is bad" route a bit too far in this case. I mean, the logic train makes no sense. You say that you have nothing against the social stigma, but the institutionalization of the said stigma into a code of laws. BUT, then you go and say, of course rape is wrong. You know why rape is illegal... cause there's a clear social stigma (and yes, it is a social stigma). Animals commit what we would consider "rape" very frequently and humanity's past, rape was not as socially stigmatized OR illegal. Murder is the same way. A society CAN exist with murder being legalized. Clearly we have a moral stigma against murder and that has been deemed illegal. Yes, there are a set of our laws that are CLEARLY derived from "morality" but thats to be expected. Is it really surprising that SOCIAL expectations are part of the law in SOCIETY. I mean... I don't find it hard to believe that as social creatures, we have to codify our social expectations. Masturbation clearly is considered not appropriate in public and is codified as such. And although it may not be rape, there are a lot of psychological issues that can occur for children to be exposed to that kinda thing. (Highlighted in Yellow) In response to this point... thats nothing more than teenage angst. Sorry, you're under 18. Tough, you grow up. Everyone has to go through it. Is it rather arbitrary number, of course. But its necessary. I don't really get how its "oppression". What age would you suggest? 3? 13? 214? Sorry, you're underage. Thats unfortunate but its not like the above 18 crowd had to take some tough entrance exam or paid off officials to get there. There HAS to be an age of legal consent. Its to make sure that the individual has (hopefully) been sufficiently socialized before becoming responsible for their decisions (now, yes, there are a lot of idiots out there, but you can't do an IQ test or anything to determine legal independence) (In red) Again, this goes back to social expectations being put into a code of laws. Even if you don't think its right, most of society as an expectation that it left in the privacy of you're own home. And really thats all that matters. Social stigmas are kind of the basis of law. Complete anarchy isn't exactly a plausible option. Theft is socially looked down upon and is thus against the law. Theft could easily by legal in a Klingon like society, take what you can forcefully obtain. BUT thats not our social code. So you don't want government to force the individual to be socially responsible by keeping his ... "business" private, but you expect the government to clean up the streets after him? That seems a bit backwards in my book. If you REALLY want the "government is bad approach", then he should be forced to pay a fee to a private company to clean up after him... Just like how art shouldn't be "different for the sake of being different", neither should your politics. The cyber uproar on this board alone kinda proves why its law. Its not socially acceptable and consequently is against the law, just like a number of other things like murder, theft, rape, etc. Yes the crime itself is among the smaller petty things that can be done, but just like ALL other laws in existence, its part of the social order based entirely of whats deemed okay to society. This isn't oppression at all. Oppression would be that he can't masturbate at all, or that he has to do it monitored at 3 PM at a government center. I'd rather have this "oppressive" social order than have more of these incidences out on the street. And as social expectations change, so do laws (i.e. slavery, civil rights, gay rights, labor rights, etc). They are changed, repealed or added. I mean... I guess if I can put my post into a short statement.... Laws are nothing more than a written version of social stigmas to which we can hold everyone accountable.

Originally posted by: Ntq$310 I would call your opinion biased because you already don't hold a good few of them or the right wing in this country. But yes, lets actually stick to the topic instead of calling segments of entire countries stupid for political reasons.quote> Opinions by definition are biased..... We only run into problems when we try to pass them off as fact. And because I'm lazing and not really feel like quoting... What I'm not really understanding is how its Limbaugh's right to be a downright ass (which, I agree with), but when those pesky job stealing, country hating, illegal immigrant loving LIBERALS get involved... we through the mud and condemn THEM. Freedom of speech works in all directions... Sure they SHOULDN'T be getting involved, but nothing says they can't. Their entire persona is built on the defense of the black culture/race in all facets of daily life. They are ACTIVISTS, complaining, campaigning and condemning are what they do... I don't find it all that unusual or out of line for them to speak up. If they find something offensive... feel free to say something. Additionally... Somehow this thread has put Michael Vick and Rush Limbaugh in some sort of mutually exclusive dichotomy (if you support one, you inherently must oppose the other). I dunno... I hate both of them and I think thats a pretty normal response by the average American. I don't hate judge Rush Limbaugh more harshly than Vick because he's white. If anything, I judge BOTH of them equally because of their social status (which I admit, is probably unfair, but eh... at least I can admit my own bias). Regarding Michael J Fox's Parkinson's thing... I actually thought his shaking was on the low side. For having been diagnosed as long as he has, at the time of his ad, I thought it was relatively under control. I have seen FAR worse cases than his. Limbaugh and Anne Coulter have a special place in my heart... the part where I'd love to banish them to their own circle of fiery punishment. Yes... even I have small bits of dark places in my heart for who I consider evil human beings.

I don't really understand the militant opposition to facebook... i mean, its not like its a mandatory service that you must sign up for. I don't get angry over voluntary stuff... just seems pretty silly. Personally, I like using facebook and it makes organizing group gatherings a hell of a lot easier than calling or emailing, especially if you don't want everyone to have your email (although I have mine public so thats a moot point). I like communicating via facebook because it only takes a couple seconds and I don't need or anticipate an immediate response. Plus, with a good chunk of my friends being overseas, I don't have to spend money calling them and email can sometimes be a bit slow... (isn't that sad.... email being slow?). Regarding phone calls... if you don't want texts or phonecalls at any given time of the waking day... then why did you get a cell phone? Again... voluntary. Personally, I like when people tell me that they are heading over or will be coming home late. Thats COMMON COURTESY, something I feel this world has lost quite a bit of. I hate when my friends are late and they don't tell me, its very frustrating. I'm guessing Duke that you never have to cook a meal for someone. When you do, timing is quite important if you wanna serve something thats half way decent and not microwaveable. Of course, I'm guessing you're the person probably running late so you don't find it a big inconvenience. Look at it this way... why am I not important enough to be informed if you're gonna be late? I have my own life too and I'd rather not be sitting by idly if I can find something to do for the given time.

I dunno... maybe its just me, but a lot of the "downtowns" people are citing to me aren't really downtowns. I mean, If you wanna get technical, Minneapolis-Saint Paul has its main two and in addition it has Bloomington, Saint Louis Park, and several others. BUT no one in their right mind would even consider Bloomington as having a "downtown". Tall buildings a downtown does not make. No one, and I mean NO one considers Bloomington to have a downtown. A lot of the places being described as "downtowns" are just business districts. Most probably don't even have any proper entertainment venues or places to eat that are higher caliber than Olive Garden, Subway or McDonalds. Lets be real folks. MOST cities have one true DOWNTOWN and when you talk to someone and ask "Where's downtown", they'll point to the same spot. Now some cities, like Boston have multiple downtowns. I don't deny they exist.... but if its just a tall building with parking lots... thats not a downtown. When you ask "where's downtown" where I live... unless you're REALLY close to one of them, they'll ask "Which downtown". We have true multiple downtowns in Minneapolis - Saint Paul (I discount Dallas-Fort Worth cause there's some 45 miles in between). There are many vantage points to see both, and they each have their own entertainment venues and cultural significance. A lot of the places being described are satellite burbs built in the past 20 years. Unless they have something awesome to offer besides cubicle space.. its not a downtown (and some obscure bar doesn't count).

I don't personally have a favorite... I like bits and pieces from a bunch of artists. Plus... something about ranking art disturbs me

G1

Yea... but still not as cool (Kenny 1- Jake 0)

Its been awhile since I posted a picture! (On the right for those who don't know). And no, i'm not short, I just have tall friends, I'm 6'0"

I think an easy way to look at this is to consider the alternative. What would NYC look like WITHOUT subways, commuter rails, etc. I think that pretty much shows that a city with subways is a well planned city. A well planned city has multiple modes of transportation to satisfy the various users.

Originally posted by: duack Actually no, the white flight isn't a real thing. Suburbs in Australia are about as common as suburbs in the US yet there is no african minority present in Australia. So suburbanisation actually isnt a result of racism. quote> White flight is a very real, very well studied and documented phenomenon. My blog actually discusses it briefly. It was US policy to "red line" blacks out of entire cities where mortgage loan interviews often had questions like "Was the applicants great great great great grandfather eligble to vote?" (The answer is no cause they were either slaves or free blacks without the right to vote). It is possible that a known trend can be reached by different means. There's a reason why the US and Australia are two different countries and each has their own issues. Racial segregation was one of the primary factors in conjunction with the interstate highway system that lead to rapid suburbanization/sprawl. Also, now your arguing lawns take up too much water? Direct water use Accounts for only 10% of a person's water use. 90% of the water a person uses is consumed indirectly through diet, particularly with water thirsty foods like meat. So changing your diet will make much more of a difference to the water you use than living in an apartment would. Watering lawns and gardens accounts for very little actual water use.quote> While certainly true that a lot of our water consumption is through diet and other goods, I think he was just going with the fact that diet tends to be rather homogenous among communities and thus if you can control for one difference between suburbs and urban living, it'd be lawn care. This just demonstrates a difference of values. Food is a necessity while green lawns is a luxury in his opinion (which, call me crazy, but thats one luxury I can say no to, Zen garden here I come!). Additionally, he was pulling a specific case where 1) water use for lawns is undoubtedly far above average (making your 90%-10% statistic somewhat useless) and 2) that given the LOCAL environmental circumstances, the luxurgy of a green lawn seems illogocial. In this case its a higher per capita lawn watering versus a significantly smaller average annual precipitation. This would mean a much larger share of Phoenix's water is "wasteful". Additionally, since meat can be raised in many different areas, its impact on water resources can be mitigated (and is) by raising cattle in areas that are water rich (or at least more so than Phoenix). And in my experience... vegetarians tend to live in urban areas although I can't really back that up with anything solid but perhaps others have seen this as well (generally where liberals congregate, there tend to be more vegetarians no?) Urban areas have parks too. If it weren't for suburbs, any city would probably spend 50% less on transportation infrastructure. It's actually suburbs that eat up all of the concrete and pavement, because they are so expansive and need the widening and repavement the most because suburban street plans call for making people unable to go anywhere unless they go onto the arterial roads. quote> Yes, I know suburbs use a lot of pavement but the point Im making is that the pavement is not in the residential areas. Im not denying the concrete use of subrubs Im talking about the visual appeal of suburbs.quote> Again, a difference in values and perhaps completely different scopes regarding the "green space" issue. You're looking locally where he appears to be looking regionally. Yes, on a small scale, suburbs have a lot of green space. But if you take it regionally, its not as green as it might seem, especially if there is a signficant lack of suburban mass transportation. Also, he might be thinking that if suburbs didn't exist, you'd have a LOT more green space to serve more people. An area that has 1 million people in 100 square miles undoubtedly uses less resources than 1 million people 1,000 square miles. And even though the 100 square mile city has more concrete, it has saved 900 square miles of "green space". Yes, I've deduced it down to very characterized cities for the sake of discussion, but its clearly a dense versus less dense argument to him and a local aesthetics argument for you which are necessarily incompatible... but hard to mesh. And why are you mentioning bixel's argument? He lived in a spot where you could enjoy nature. quote> Do you think it's possible for eveyone in america to live like that? Also, all suburbanites want to do is to live in an area with gardens and lawns where they can live peacefully. quote> This is where social psyche is a pretty cool area to consider. One could argue that suburbanites are TAUGHT or socialized into believing this is desireable because this in fact is NOT the standard view throughout the world, but one thats been propogated mainly in the West for a variety of reasons (the Metropolitan race, cities competing for tax base, gas profits, etc). In various parts of the East, its been tought that Cities are beautiful and that gardening and farming of any kind is the lowest thing to do. Working in England for a local wildlife trust, they had issues integrating minorities into environmental programs because many did not find the environment that necessary to be a part of. Didn't mean that they didn't love it or though it should be conserved, but that urban gardens and trips to the outskirts of civilization were pointless. This socialization may be backfiring as the youngest generation that grew up in the suburbs sees its faults and move towards the cities (there is a reason why Generation X and Y have been buying condos in urban areas fueling massive condo developments). Many cities in the US have actually had their CBD's grow simply because the idea of a suburban dream is false and wasteful. Some have theorized that there will be a suburban/urban pendulum for generations to come. Its all gonna be relative to where people think or are taught which areas are desireable. Supporting a pedestrian-friendly environment leads to social interaction and the ability to talk to each other. quote> First of all, that is very cliche. Second, while this may work in small towns, the chances of you bumping into someone in a city are unlikely. Besides, not all people like the idea of having to have several conversations when trying to walk somewhere. It can be very claustrophobic.quote> Its not that cliche. Urban studies have shown urban areas exhibit tighter community identity bonds and pedestrian friendly areas do promote social interaction. This is why you see differntiation in cities such as the artsy district, or Chinatown etc. I live in a metro of 3.5 million people and I run into people randomly ALL the time. I don't think he meant social interaction to the point where you can't walk to get a soda from the local corner store without being asked how your day is every 15 feet. He just meant that you are more likely to know your neighbors as well as get involved locally. Having less space kinda forces you to address your neighbors and community issues tend to be more galvanizing, thats all. Its not very cliche to expect urban areas to have more social interaction, thats been kind of the point of cities since the days of Urr. Also, there's a big unexplained question to your whole anti-suburb stance. If people hate suburbs then why do people continue to live in suburbs? People have the freedom to choose where they live depending on their income. But surburbs and apartments exist that would suit anyone's budget. So why do people live in suburbs if suburbs are so bad?quote> Suburbs are cheap, its easy to live in them. And until 2007, gas prices were relatively cheap making suburbs a steal. Why live in a city for 500k when you can find a sweet house in the suburbs with gas prices hovering around $1. Now that its not, urban developments have spiked. Its all about the bottom line. Then you have the whole collective psyche view point that "people do what they are taught" and that the "American dream" is still perpetuated in pretty much every form of media (although there have recently been a ton of backlash in media thats fueling the return to cities). If you wanna take the patronizing view... "People don't know any better" or are "ignorant of their consequences". People like myself oppose suburbs not on their aesthics or anything like that, but of inequality in monetary distribution. Suburbs have always been subsidized by urban areas (generally through State funds). Cities, although they have a lot more amenities, are generally cheaper to run on a per capita basis than a suburb. The infrastructure cost is generally externalized from the price of new homes as developers get tax credits to build roads and utilities that aren't necessarily included in the price. Suburbs tend to get more development funds than urban areas and when thats using taxes generated by urban areas, yes, I do have an issue.

Originally posted by: Duke87 I'm going to preface this with one big . Brace yourselves. 10. Q: What are the 5 kingdoms of life? A: Eubacteria, Archaebacteria, Protista, plantae, animalia, fungiquote> This is good. You correctly name the six kingdoms in the answer, but ask for five in the question.quote> Technically, no. Archaebacteria and Eubacteria are not a kingdoms, they are domains. The 5 kingdom system was oringally Monera, Protista, Plantae, animalia, and fungi. Parts of the old Monera kingdom have been split btween Eubacteria and Archaebacteria domains in the relatively "new" three domain system (Eubacteria, Archae, and Eucaryota) with the majority of "Protists", plants, animals and fungi falling in the 3rd domain. Because scientists struggled to classify the polyphyletic "protista" and that the Kingdom Monera had more diversity than all the other kingdoms combined, they overhauled the taxonomic system. Some may have considered Archaebacteria its own kingdom for a time, but it wasn't widespread. It is certainly not in use today. 31. Q: If you checked the time on big ben, in which country would you be? A: England.quote> Technically correct, though "The UK" would be a better answer, would it not?quote> England is defined as its own "country" thus it is the most accurate answer. The UK is a union of countries (albeit its formation somewhat undercuts the feel good nature of the word "union") into a single sovereign state. Each constituent part of the UK refers to themself as a country. By American standards, we'd consider the UK a single "country". But England seems to be the best answer. Although there is issue with some people whether the clock or the bell in the clock tower is actually Big Ben, but I'll go with the general usage. The name was first refered to for the bell, but has since been molded, mostly by tourism. So if you wanna get uber technical, you can't read the time off of Big Ben, it only chimes.

Originally posted by: astronelson Originally posted by: s.i.X Stop complicating things! quote> Complication... or refinement? And confused, I think that system may describe a different thing entirely. My system has attraction to same and opposite sex as independant variables, whereas yours has them as two aspects of the same thing: attraction to the same sex must decrease with increasing attraction to the opposite sex. With mine, someone could be on (1,10) and another on (1,0). They would both have the same attraction to people of the opposite sex, but the first is predominantly attracted to members of the same sex whereas the seond is completely straight. quote> I was just referring to a coordinate system that would explain how one sexual orientation is "better" as was previously discussed. Your system, although logical, doesnt discuss how an orientation is "better" or "worse" as everything remains subjective at all cooridnates. I was going to presume that an orientation is better or worse based on ones ability to express this sexuality safely. So it would be sexual attraction on one axis and the ability to express it on the other. So lets say we have 4 people... A- Straight, straight community b- gay, straight community c- straight, gay community d- gay, gay community These are of course going to be taken to their most absurd bounds, but just for the sake of explaining my sexual orientation coordinates regarding how an orientation could be "better". A) This persons coordinates would be 10 (straight) and 10 (accepted). I.e. He has no issues finding someone he's attracted to AND is not ridiculed. B) This person is a -10 (gay) and we'll say this is a very hostile straight community (-10). I.e. he cannot find someone they are attracted to or is not accepted. C) Person would be a 10 (straight), -10 (not accepted). This is a highly unlikely scenario but for the sake of this system, it could be possible a gay community doesn't appreciate straight people, or more likely that a straight person will not find anyone he can date. D). This person would be -10,-10 (gay, gay friendly community). This person has found a GLBT enclave and can be happy. So basically, quadrants 1 and 3 are the better than 2 and 4. Sexual coordinates, since they did not exist previous to this conversation, need not remain just in the sexuality realm. My system proposes an almost sexuality-sociogeographic system which could create a "better or worse" orientation for the given circumstances.

I was thinking more like the x-axis being the attraction to either sex (-10 being "straight" and 10 being "gay" or vice versa) and y-axis being situational ability to express feelings (number of homosexual people, general acceptance in the community etc)

Oh, I just didn't get it... *gestures hand wooshing over head* Edit: Oh, i didn't realize there was any text after the first sentence. I just assumed it was another signature I didn't want to read

Originally posted by: Duke87 Originally posted by: confused04 I don't really think any sexual orientation is better than other...quote> Depends, sexual orientation isn't the whole picture. You also need sexual coordinates to fully know someone's situation. Then you can start making judgments. Yeah, shoot me for that. quote> I was speaking in general. I don't think any sexual orientation is inherently better than the next. And the point of my comment was that there shouldn't be any judgements at all, that is the main issue.

Originally posted by: thepokemaniac I did not realize that there were so many gays on Simtropolis! I mean, Im not saying that in a bad way, I just never realized it. While I do feel that being strait is better, I do keep an open mind about these issues and I do support people being able to choose their sexual orientation. It is their descision, and while I do not completely agree with it, it is up to them to do what they want and have their own views. This is why I also consider myself to be a Liberal-Conservative Democrat, not exactly right-wing, yet more leaning toward the left. Boggy1: I hope your relationship works out for you and Niel!quote> Although I'm sure you're well intentioned, I myself disagree with two things you said, but I do realize its your opinion but I just want to make a short comment. A) I don't really think any sexual orientation is better than other... just like a preference for movies or dog breeds is no better or worse than the next (albeit, poor comparision) B ) I think the vast majority of homosexuals would say they didn't "choose" to be gay. Sure its nice to accept what people choose to do with their lives, but in all the cases I know, and I know quite a few gays, I do not think ANY of them chose to be gay. Sexual orientation isn't a choice, no more so than your ethnic heritage. Its just who you are. Of course this is just nitpicking, any support is welcomed in the gay community I'm sure, but just two points that I think most homosexuals would disagree with.

Just to note, at the moment this post was ... posted.... the 35 W bridge collapsed 2 years ago. 13 People died, 145 injured.

This article comes on the eve of the 2nd Anniversary of the 35 W bridge collapse which is tomorrow. Regarding government/private enterprise, I generally trust neither. But given a choice, I pick government. The flawed notion that private enterprise is ALWAYS better is just sickening. Market forces promote acceptable losses. Take ANY basic micro-economics course, and you're taught to figure out what is the acceptable level of error in production. Yea... I don't trust the invisible hand for these kinds of things. Accountability isn't there. People say, "vote with your money" but there are some necessities that you can't vote by walking away. Thats where government is there to be held accountable at LEAST through voting. Anyway, yes, the program is flawed. Its disappointing.

Unfortunately, its still a bus and study after study after study shows that buses have a stigma to them that is proving hard to shake. There are still racial divides on bus transportation. Whites to this day continue to avoid bus transportation and surveys find that whites are attracted to fixed rail transportation. Now is this true EVERYWHERE? No, of course not. BRT's can work, especially in inner ring suburbs in cities that aren't that consolidated. But BRT to the stereotypical suburbs I think MAY prove to be a waste of money. Whether its true or not, trains are perceived to be more punctual.

Generally I avoid this thread like I avoid North Minneapolis but I just had something quick to say... For those saying its arrogant to think that humans can affect the environment or that we are too insignificant to do anything... I disagree. I think arrogance lies in the inability to accept the fact that our actions have consequences....